FoCA – the beginning of the end

Fr Mund cargill Thompson

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”.

sarah hill

Dear Simon.

moving, powerful, honest, real – and a joy to read.

God bless and keep you

x

Wilf

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.

Wilf

in the above I have “relevant to ethics” where it should be “relevant to hermeneutics” – excuse me, I tend to write rather fast.

Fr Mund cargill Thompson

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…

Fr Mund cargill Thompson

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?

Fr Richard Sutter SSM

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!)

Fr Mund cargill Thompson

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… 🙂