July 7, 2009 parish FoCA – the beginning of the end I have not been to London today, not least because from what I have read from others, the FoCA meeting would make me very very angry indeed. Instead, I have been labouring in the vineyard, working in local schools and spreading the Gospel, rather than travelling up to London to take a day out to have a go at gays or women or whoever else you think you ought to hate. What a waste. When we should be more concerned with making Christ known, with delivering God’s Holy Word and Blessed Sacraments to those who need it, some are more concerned with rattling sabres about schism. David Virtue calls for a new reformation, and in doing so puts the enemy (and all his divisions) at the heart of debate. +Broadhurst describes Satan at Church House. Shame on him. He should resign his holy orders immediately. What are these people doing to make Christ known? To share his love? To embrace the marginalised and the poor? The (few) members of the House of Bishops supporting this schism should be ashamed. If they aren’t ashamed, then they should have the integrity to resign from this Church. This would, of course, leave Chichester without Episcopal oversight, but hey, at least all those gay priests in Chichester would know where they stood. Likewise, I note with sadness the support of the PEVs – they who have in their care a disproportionately high number of gay priests, most not even safely in the closet, but many who have active partners – I went to Mirfield, and that is how I know this to be the case. I wonder how cheated they feel at present. As MadPriest asked yesterday, is it worth the sacrifice of their integrity and their self-worth just simply to keep the girls out? We ordain women because we baptise girls. Fr Ivan seems to confuse the Gospel with some kind of mysogyny, which is a pity because I deeply admire everything else he does: the tireless proclamation of God’s love in that community. From what I read in his blog, it would sadly appear that he would no longer wish to be my friend simply because of a different reading of Scripture, a different reading of the Church and a slight change in the Mission of God on this earth. The one thing that comforts me is that they will get their way. If they want to be ‘orthodox’ in their own little way, then they should be allowed to leave the Church – walk out of the buildings and away from their pensions and start again. However, I consider myself and our parish to also be orthodox – to be true to Scripture and also more importantly, the meta-teachings of Christ. To claim they have the handle on ‘truth’ is just arrogant. Matthew 7:1 is clear about judgement of others. They should read their bibles a bit more. (My sincere apologies to Bishop Peter for my typing error, now corrected) By spr
17 Comments Ostrich Posted on 8:25 am - July 7, 2009 Bravo!!!! Reply Fr Mund cargill Thompson Posted on 9:35 am - July 7, 2009 Hi Simon I think that without knowing it you have in your first paragraph identified a key (and usually overlooked point) “I have been labouring in the vineyard, working in local schools and spreading the Gospel” The key distinction in today’s Church of England and Anglican Communion is NOT between those who take one view on sexual ethics and those who take a different one, NOR between those who believe women can be ordained and those who believe they can’t, BUT between those who believe in evangelism and those who don’t. The so called Liberal Party is divided between the likes of you who passionately believe in winning souls for Christ, and others who see evangelism either as a matter of low priority or as something they are embarassed about. A priest recently told me that her church was dying off and in ten years time would be non viable “But we can’t change anything because the congregation are old, and it would not be fair to them.” I have heard too many similar comments to write that off as one eccentric. The KEY distinction is between those who believe in Evangelism and those who don’t. Then there is the issue of Orthodoxy. There is a statistic that Reform like to trumpet from a 2002 survey which showed that one third Anglican Clergy don’t believe in core Christian doctrines such as the physical resurection of Jesus. That means two thirds of Anglican Clergy DO believe in core Christian doctrines. Two thirds of Anglican Clergy are orthodox. It would be better if all were, but at least the overwhelming majority are. But what drives people into the arms of Forward in Faith and Reform, is that far too much of the middle ground TOLERATES the “practical atheists”. This question boils down to “who would you rather be in communion with, +Jack Spong or ++Peter Akinola?” Not “Who would you rather go down the pub with?” Though I have met neither man, I am guessing it would be more fun down the pub with Jack. But “who would you rather be in communion with?” That Jack Spong (a heterosexual atheist) was allowed to remain a bishop until retirement, that he was invited to Lambeth Conferences, and that Church of England establishment raised no protest at his views was scandalous – and drives people into the arms of groups like Reform. Orthodox Christians, whatever their view on human sexuality or the ordination of women, have FAR more in common with each other than with the Sea of Faith Atheists who have infiltated our church. A third issue is the authority of Scripture. The so called liberal party is divided between those who believe homosexual sex is consonent with Scripture and those who believe Scripture should be thrown out the window in order to allow “modern ethics”. It might seem that the two groups have a lot in common – they both believe in same conclusion – that sexually active gay relationships are for certain people God’s will. But they disagree FUNDAMENTALLY on methodology. In fact, the so-called Liberal who believes gay sex is consonent with Scripture has far more in common with a member of Reform. Both believe the bible has authority. They have a common ground for debate. They can talk to each other. But as those who would reject the bible – there IS no common ground. There is no authority that can be argued over. It boils down to “Well you may say that, but I say this, so naah naah ner naah naah”. Reply Kathryn Posted on 10:34 am - July 7, 2009 Thank you Fr Simon…great great post. Reply sarah hill Posted on 10:01 pm - July 7, 2009 Dear Simon. moving, powerful, honest, real – and a joy to read. God bless and keep you x Reply Wilf Posted on 1:12 pm - July 8, 2009 meta-teachings ! (* sigh *) Reply Wilf Posted on 5:02 pm - July 8, 2009 Fr. Simon, Aristotle’s book of Metaphysics was named such, by the medievals, since it comes “after” the Physics. Later, the vague notion sprouted of the metaphysics being “above” or “higher” than physical things. Metaphysics describes categories of thinking or principles which help us to make useful abstractions and generalizations. Its principles are not really “above” the things they describe; they are more tools of understanding. Nonetheless, it has become common in lingo to use this word “meta,” which in Greek means “adjacent to,” to describe rad new things which somehow should come “above” those trivial old normal things, and somehow function in a commanding or determining sense – or as Kant describes his categories, a “legislative” sense. Now let’s think about “meta-teachings.” I suppose one could try to “abstract” some sort of “essence” from a number of different sayings of Christ. But that, again, is not such good hermeneutics. We also note a great * diversity * in the things which Christ taught. Our attempts at circumscribing them with generalizations always fail. We can not easily pin them down with ethical formulas or sentences about what they were “really” about. What Jesus “really” means is … why is your “really” more “real” than what Christ Himself is saying? We need to go back to the texts themselves, and appreciate the words in their very concreteness. We interpret Christ’s words, and do not apply our own interpretive gloss as to what is in common amongst a few of his sayings, and then sell these off as his “meta-teachings.” Let us teach what Christ Himself taught, and not teach something that we ourselves have superimposed upon Christ’s teachings. Yes, I have sloughed through Heidegger’s Being and Time, Gadamer’s Truth and Method, and a host of other works relevant to ethics, and it is precisely for this reason that the word “meta-teachings” strikes me as sloppy and arrogant in what it is likely to try to superimpose upon those teachings of Christ. This is indeed Gadamer’s insistence upon turning back to the “sache” (sometimes translated as “issue”) – the very concrete text within its context – in order to overturn the 19th century romantic / victorian hermeneutic of supposed spiritual essences or feelings residing somewhere deeply within one’s self. With texts, we are not studying deep inner selves; we are studying things. Numerous streams within postmodernism confirm the death of 19th century hermeneutics such as Barthes’ texts on the death of the author, Foucault on the author function, and Derrida and Lacoue-Labarthe on the deconstruction of the enlightenment/romantic “subject” or “experiencing I.” This is relevant because if we were to try to find some special rule for distilling or abstracting Christ’s teachings into some “meta”-thing, it would rely on this realm of the “subjective.” It sounds like a gnostic attempt at creating some sort of “special knowledge” in a reified realm, devoid of the “bodily”, the incarnate, the difficult, the challenging, and rather a set of easy-to-apply principles like “always be nice” and “try to include everyone” – and allowing one’s ethical system to be formed by patterns which most easily fit into these overarching principles. Remember, the word “teaching” is the rather lowly word “doxa” – slightly above “pistis”, but below the more assuming terms “episteme” and “idea” or “nous”. It is not knowledge in the sense of something which can be categorically proven; nor is it a higher “form” devoid of all “human” elements as a divine “idea”. A form of human complicity and complicatedness remains in it – even though we believe Christ’s words to be divine and from God. But they are not purified of the human, nor formulaic. So speaking of meta-teachings smacks of trying to make “teachings” into something more than teachings, or super-imposing some sort of system, in an attempt at arriving at “episteme” or “idea.” And such attempts skew Christ’s words, and substitute our own creation (and will) for His own. If Christ had wanted us to create meta-teachings out of His words, He surely would have told us so. Instead, we have stern warnings about misleading His children, and what Paul, whom we take as a reliable source and interlocutor with eyewitnesses of Christ, provides us with Galatians 1:6. So indeed, let us study Christ’s words within context, and apply them within our own contexts, as good hermeneutics teaches us to do. That, mate, was the contents of my (* sigh *) but I thought you might prefer the condensed version. In short, I think you had better use a word other than “meta-teachings.” I agree that hermeneutics and interpreting the words of Christ is a challenge to the intellect. But in most cases, it’s actually quite easy, and the Holy Spirit is with us to inspire us as well. Christ is referred to as the “logos” precisely because His Words are so important – as He himself said, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” He did not say, “some words we find in Scripture, which fit our favorite ethical system or poetic sensibilities.” Thus rather not liking “meta-teachings” since it seems to encourage the teaching of our own teachings which we say come from Chirst, instead of Christ’s own. Reply Wilf Posted on 5:04 pm - July 8, 2009 in the above I have “relevant to ethics” where it should be “relevant to hermeneutics” – excuse me, I tend to write rather fast. Reply Wilf Posted on 5:04 pm - July 8, 2009 in the above I have “relevant to ethics” where it should be “relevant to hermeneutics” – excuse me, I tend to write rather fast. Reply Fr Ivan D Aquilina SSC Posted on 7:12 am - July 9, 2009 Father, A friend of mine directed me to your post. I was saddened to find out that you decided to be my judge and jury and proclaim that I confuse the Holy Gospel with misogyny. Misogyny implies hatred. I feel saddened that you have proclaimed that I read hatred in the Gospel of Love. The problem is that if people do not agree with you then there must be something fundamentally wrong with them like being misogynists etc… How sad! However if that is what you want to call me because I am faithful to Christ and all his saints, you already have my forgiveness, even before you ask for it. Again, you assume for me that I would no longer wish to be your friend. How did you get to that conclusion? I can safely say that you have not helped this friendship yourself by harrying me out of the C of E leaving behind “buildings, pensions and start again”, forgetting that apart from that there are people we love dearly and we have served faithfully at personal cost. Are the illiberal liberals so lusting after our buildings? You see I am not here for the icing but for the cake. It is not the buildings etc but the Faith of Jesus Christ as given to us by His Church. Is it all about money? Or do I hear the thirst for blood and persecution? Do you have the “handle” on truth and Scriptures? While it is not difficult for me to find a new home what about the members of my wonderful congregation who are being betrayed and ousted by people like you? If we do not agree with you than must we go? Even you must realise that for a married man with a family to put everything at risk including as you say buildings and pension rights (forgetting friends and sacrifice) shows that what he believes comes out of commitment and faith not misogyny. He is very poor and empty the man who thinks that those who do not agree with him might not be honest and genuine. Elsewhere you speak about Incarnation as basic sacrament. Incarnation is part of the chain of Salvation history, a golden link but still a part. Incarnation is about Christ initiating the fullness of salvation and paving the way for the Paschal Mystery in which Love’s redeeming work is done. It is Christ himself (not the incarnation on its own) that is the primordial sacrament. Christ instituted the Church to be the extension of himself (therefore of the Incarnation too) and so the Church is an essential part of the Primordial Sacrament, in fact there is no distinction between the Christ and the Church as there is no distinction between the bride and the bridegroom. This Primordial Sacrament gave us the Holy Gospel as its loving reflection on its founder. We live in him and we understand him from within the community of faith which in turn makes us part of the Primordial Sacrament as we celebrate the Sacraments. We are faithful to Christ and put him on when we come to him from within the mind of the Universal Church, East and West and not the (few) Anglican bishops that have decided to change what the Church always, everywhere and at all times believed and held as true. I write not because I am worried of what you say, I am not surprised by what you say; I am surprised and hurt at the way you say it. It seems that there is something that goes deeper than what you write and if that is the case, I hope and pray that you resolve it, if not take time to think before you write. I hold you have been unwise in implicating me with misogyny/misogynistic reading of the Holy Gospel and I hope that you can retract that statement. I have never closed the lines of friendship with you and trust that you can repair the damage you made to that friendship when you feel that you are able to. Fr Ivan Dominic Aquilina SSC Reply Fr Mund cargill Thompson Posted on 8:27 am - July 9, 2009 On the issue of “laving behind … pensions” – I think I’m right in saying that under English law, unless the pension scheme goes bust, you can’t have existing pension rights taken away from you. If anyone ceases to be a stipendiary C of E priest – whether because they get defrocked for being an axe murderer, become an NSM, join a continuing church or lose their faith, they will not accrue any further pension (they’ll have to get that from their new job) but they WILL get the pension they have accrued so far. Having sometimes been tempted by parish situations to go down the axe murderer route, I find this greatly reassuring… Reply Fr Mund cargill Thompson Posted on 8:27 am - July 9, 2009 On the issue of “laving behind … pensions” – I think I’m right in saying that under English law, unless the pension scheme goes bust, you can’t have existing pension rights taken away from you. If anyone ceases to be a stipendiary C of E priest – whether because they get defrocked for being an axe murderer, become an NSM, join a continuing church or lose their faith, they will not accrue any further pension (they’ll have to get that from their new job) but they WILL get the pension they have accrued so far. Having sometimes been tempted by parish situations to go down the axe murderer route, I find this greatly reassuring… Reply Fr Mund cargill Thompson Posted on 8:44 am - July 9, 2009 I long and pray that the Church of England will not divide over these issues of homosexuality and the ordination of women. But if sadly it does come to that, it would seem best answer would be for the C of E to sell the church buildings to the leaving congregations in a series of say 25 annual installments. This would avoid law suits that would eat up money and benefit no one but the lawyers. It would avoid the ridiculousness of chucking out a viable congregation (just because it had now joined a different denomination) only to close the building because there was no viable C of E congregation to take it’s place. It is the most financially advantageous solution on all sides It is also (I would argue) the most Christian solution. We Christians disagree on what the bible says about homosexuality and the ordination of women. But there is ONE thing that the bible is ABSOLUTELY clear on – Christians are not to sue each other. The Church of England spends enormous amounts of time (and hundreds of thousands of pounds employing ecumenical officers) trying to patch up differences wih people we split from hundreds of years ago. Isn’t it equally worth the effort and money to try to patch up the differences with people we split from two or three years ago, or might split from over the next two or three years? Reply Fr Mund cargill Thompson Posted on 8:44 am - July 9, 2009 I long and pray that the Church of England will not divide over these issues of homosexuality and the ordination of women. But if sadly it does come to that, it would seem best answer would be for the C of E to sell the church buildings to the leaving congregations in a series of say 25 annual installments. This would avoid law suits that would eat up money and benefit no one but the lawyers. It would avoid the ridiculousness of chucking out a viable congregation (just because it had now joined a different denomination) only to close the building because there was no viable C of E congregation to take it’s place. It is the most financially advantageous solution on all sides It is also (I would argue) the most Christian solution. We Christians disagree on what the bible says about homosexuality and the ordination of women. But there is ONE thing that the bible is ABSOLUTELY clear on – Christians are not to sue each other. The Church of England spends enormous amounts of time (and hundreds of thousands of pounds employing ecumenical officers) trying to patch up differences wih people we split from hundreds of years ago. Isn’t it equally worth the effort and money to try to patch up the differences with people we split from two or three years ago, or might split from over the next two or three years? Reply Fr Richard Sutter SSM Posted on 4:22 pm - July 14, 2009 I quite agree with both Fathers Ivan and Mund, and I don’t think that Fr Simon has really addressed the issue at heart. It’s not that we who hold to the Catholic Faith “hate” women (as “misogyny” asserts) or “fear” gays (as “homophobic” asserts), but that we understand that the Faith teaches clearly and unequivocally in the second instance that some behaviours are sinful–and we all are tempted to some sinful behaviours and not to others–and in the first instance not that ordaining a woman is undesirable or distasteful or inadvisable, but merely impossible. Once one understands the real teaching of the Catholic Faith re these two contemporarily secularisations of the Church, one ought to see that by extension, no orders=no priest=no sacraments=no Church. It is our sacred duty to hold and minister the Word and Sacraments in trust to the laos, and when bishops and priests fail to do so, they fail in their vocation. (Totally off-topic: Fr Simon thank you so much for your provision of the calendar in formats usable by a techno-geek such as myself!) Reply Fr Mund cargill Thompson Posted on 7:58 am - July 15, 2009 “the Faith teaches clearly and unequivocally …that some behaviours are sinful–and we all are tempted to some sinful behaviours and not to others” Shouldn’t this be a point of agreement rather than disagreement. From +John Broadhurst to Jeffrey John Christians have argued that CERTAIN behaviours are sinful, but have disagreed as to what behaviours are and are not sinful. There is a small (althouh admittedly vocal and passionate) difference between those who argue that only faithful stable monogamous heterosxual relationships are acceptable and those that argue that faithful stable monogamous homosexual relationships are also acceptable. There is a huge chasm between both such groups and those who are argue that sex is just a recreational activity, and that if both parties consent it doesn’t matter who you do it with. That there is no intrinsic connection between the act of sex and any sort of relationship whatsoever. Reply Fr Mund cargill Thompson Posted on 8:03 am - July 15, 2009 Fr Simon, I may be wrong – but I don’t read Fr R as doubting your orders, though he is obviously doubting those of your colleague. However I have a lot of good friends who have showed me great kindness who doubt my orders. They wilfully refuse to concelebrate with me or to receive communion if I preside, yet we remain good friends. They are called Roman Catholics… 🙂 Reply Fr Mund cargill Thompson Posted on 8:03 am - July 15, 2009 Fr Simon, I may be wrong – but I don’t read Fr R as doubting your orders, though he is obviously doubting those of your colleague. However I have a lot of good friends who have showed me great kindness who doubt my orders. They wilfully refuse to concelebrate with me or to receive communion if I preside, yet we remain good friends. They are called Roman Catholics… 🙂 Reply
Leave a Reply Cancel reply Δ This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.