Wednesday 13 April 2011

Bishops married to divorcees 'pose serious challenge to traditionalist Anglicans'

[...] For some people, therefore, the proposed consecration of Nicholas Holtam is a serious challenge to Church order. And indeed it may be — but the extent to which this is so clearly depends on the circumstances of his wife’s divorce.

This, however, took place in her teens, and it is obviously not for individuals to pry into why. Nevertheless, just as potential ordinands must face questioning in this regard, so it must be hoped that someone has delicately asked Mr and Mrs Holtam the same questions.

There would, however, be very serious problems if the answer was that Mrs Holtam’s divorce fell into neither of the categories arguably allowed by Christ or St Paul. It is one thing to disagree whether there are such exceptions. It is quite another simply to disregard this teaching entirely, for example by dissolving a marriage on the grounds of ‘breakdown’.

That such divorces occur is undoubtedly true. But the Church surely stands or falls by its faithfulness to Christ’s teaching. And it is the lack of clarity on this point which has potential for difficulties not just in Salisbury but beyond.

However, there is another, and just as pressing, reason why the nomination of Mr Holtam causes difficulty for traditionalists. Read more


Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

51 comments:

  1. John,

    Surely the point about obedience is that you don't just go along with the bits you agree with.

    You mention that you would have problems were you ministering in the diocese of Salisbury, personally I'd have huge problems were I in the diocese of Peterborough, the bishop of which has in the past written that the Windsor Castle fire was divine judgement on the royal family's marital problems (I can't quite square a notion of god randomly setting fire to the homes of some people related to divorcees, and not to others, with the teachings of Christ). But were I in that diocese, I wouldn't get to opt out of his episcopal oversight because he happened not to be a bishop of my liking. And perhaps we are sometimes sent bishops with whom we disagree for good reason - to challenge our own presuppositions and to provide an opportunity for us to benefit from practicing humble obedience.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stuart, you wrote, "Surely the point about obedience is that you don't just go along with the bits you agree with."

    And that's what really matters here. What Christ said about divorce governs (or should govern) the beliefs and practices of Christians. A bishop who disregarded that (though please note, I have no idea and have not sought to find out whether that applies in this case) ought not to be a bishop. Nor should the people who appointed him have done that.

    But the same applies on human sexuality. This is not 'me vs Holtam'. This is the House of Bishops, General Synod and the Lambeth Conference, to name but a few, vs - on the face of it - the Bishop of Salisbury.

    I am not a fan of 'private judgement' uber alles and am not advocating it here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So Nick Holtham's marriage to a divorceee (regardless of when or the circumstances) and his views on homosexuality 'pose a serious challenge to traditionalist Anglicans'.

    What I think poses a serious challenge, to all of us, not least traditionalist clergy, is Nick Holtham's love, compassion, acceptance, initiative and energy manifested in his work at St Martin's in the Fields. A Bishop with his track record should be a shining example of what is possible. If all the Bishops were like him the Church would be a very different place and very much better for it.

    Richard Ashby
    West Sussex

    ReplyDelete
  4. Richard, it's great to have a bishop with the good qualities you highlight. Would it not be possible to find a bishop with those qualities who was orthodox on sexuality and marriage?

    Maybe not, but I'd like to think there are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Canon Andrew Godsall13 April 2011 at 10:00

    John, the synod has made a judgement on the matter of whether a bishop may be married to a divorcee. You may not like the judgement, but that leaves you with a choice about whether you stay and abide by it, or leave and keep your conscience clear doesn't it?
    On the matter of homosexuality, I believe the Archbishops and house of bishops made it clear that people were free to argue for a change in the church's teaching (as Nick Holtam, and other bishops, perhaps even your own, have done) but what they are not free to do is simply set it aside and ignore it. So you need to be rather clearer what you are arguing for here.
    Canon Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  6. Reverand, I was once a traditional Anglican as well, and many of the issues you describe were serious problems for me. It bothered me tremendously that there was such a difference between what our church said and allowed and what the Gospels teach. I could never understand how the church could change teachings that come from Christ himself, or his apostles, and the idea of (as Canon Godsall describes) of putting Christ's teachings to a vote does not sit well with me at all. Ultimately, I think the Canon is right - the Church of England seems to be constantly evolving its teachings (largely, it seems to appear relevant to the times) and at some point you will probably find yourself faced with the terrible choice of staying in a church you no longer feel is faithful to Christ or leaving. I certainly did - almost two years ago, I decided that as much as I loved my church, its history and traditions, I couldn't stay anymore. I converted to Catholicism and it was without question the best thing I have ever done. Given the terrible dilemma you find yourself in, I would urge you to look into the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham (the ordinariate for Anglicans within the Catholic Church). We always need more good priests who are orthodox, and from your writing, I think you would be very much at home here. In any case, I hope you find a place. I will keep you in my prayers.

    Elizabeth
    Hertfordshire

    ReplyDelete
  7. Andrew, one thing I'd like to make clearer is that my concerns run pretty much in reverse order to that in which they appeared in the Telegraph article (though as I'm sure you'll understand, this was largely due to the issues they asked me to address).

    First, then, there is a real problem with the nominations and appointments process, which leads in part precisely to the sort of thing that is now going on - which I would agree is unseemly, but inevitable. Until serious re-consideration is given to the way bishops are appointed, we will, as I said, always been prone to this problem.

    Secondly, on church teaching, whilst it is open to people to argue for change, it is not, I think, simply open for the teachers of the Church to argue against the Church's teaching, backed up as it is by the House of Bishops, the General Synod and the Lambeth Conference. Inevitably, as I highlighted in the article, there will be problems if driving away and banishing erroneous teaching means the clergy driving away and banishing the bishop, or vice versa.

    Thirdly, there is a lack of clarity over exactly what is being applied by way of criteria for clergy to be ordained and bishops to be consecrated in situations where they or a spouse are divorced. And here, with St Paul, we surely have to say "not I, but the Lord" lays down what is permissible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Canon Andrew Godsall13 April 2011 at 11:02

    John I think it is exactly for bishops to argue for particular teaching as together we discern the right way forward in this matter. Nick will not be alone in the house of bishops will he? Do you object to your own bishop's nomination? Do you go on doing so?
    St Paul argued that it was better not be married at all. Do you think he was right about that as well?
    I think the appointment process could be a lot worse. But for people like the Church Society and you to start immediately whining in public without having the courtesy to write privately to Nick first falls short of what Jesus himself taught doesn't it?

    Canon Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  9. Andrew, I agree with you that it is possible to argue for change...but only if it is clear that until that change is agreed, bishops and others are working with current teaching.

    This is clearly not the case, and that is the problem--people arguing for a change publicly, whilst acting privately in line with their views against the agreed position of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Andrew, in response to your points in turn.

    1. I commented on Stephen Cottrell's views when his appointment was announced, here. I am very glad to say that when asked about this (by someone else) at the recent CDEA meeting he seemed committed to upholding the present, 'traditionalist', position. Though I disagree with him as to how much listening and dialogue has actually go on, I was relieved by his response - not least because he is very good overall.

    2. Yes. See here.

    3. As I said in my article, 'megaphone' announcements from Downing Street, following a process which precludes open discussion, mean that responses - especially objections - have to be made very quickly. It would be much better to have time for letter-writing to individuals, but the process precludes this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Canon Andrew Godsall13 April 2011 at 11:25

    So John
    1. How do you yet know what line Nick Holtam is going to take when he is a bishop?
    2. If you think that none of us really should marry, what future is there for the church (or indeed the human race)?
    3. Nick is not being ordained a bishop until July. That gives you several weeks to write to him privately before saying anything publicly doesn't it?
    Canon Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  12. Andrew

    1. We don't - isn't that the problem, though, when one has expressed one view and is supposed to uphold another?

    2. You'd have to read my book and Paul's argument.

    3. The actual election will take place sooner. The problem is that these questions have to be asked at all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Canon Andrew Godsall13 April 2011 at 12:17

    John
    1. I think it would be much better to engage with Nick Holtam first before writing publicly. I think that's the problem we are addressing here. It's well known that we have partnered gay clergy, especially in London and Chelmsford dioceses. If that's really a problem for you, then I am sure there are clear options.
    2. I have many books I'd like to read. I'm afraid yours is not currently one of them and I'm not persuaded that Paul was anything but mistaken. Do you protest whenever a married bishop is appointed?
    3. You won't have a part in the election but you do have time to write privately anyway. What do you make of the fact that Graham Kings, the suffragan bishop who holds the same view as you on the question of human sexuality, has publicly welcomed the appointment?

    Canon Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  14. Andrew,

    1. I do think that if a nomination can be greeted with immediate enthusiasm by some, it can equally be greeted with questioning by others - especially when, regarding the sexuality issue, it is evidence based.

    2. I'd certainly like to see a more positive attitude to those who have adopted the single life for the sake of the gospel. But as Paul says, those who marry do well so there are no grounds for any objections.

    3. Graham Kings I just can't work out. But to repeat, it is the process that is the problem - me writing now to Nicholas Holtam is not, and could not be, part of the appointments process.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Canon Andrew Godsall13 April 2011 at 15:13

    John

    I think we are not getting very far here, sadly. Perhaps you are partly regretting being so hasty in your judgement. Let's hope so.
    Writing to Nick Holtam personally would enable you to put your case and, perhaps, persuade him to consider his position in the light of your evidence. Being so hasty in public has simply made you like a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal. And I think you will find St Paul had things to say about those as well.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Canon Godsall,
    I'm just wondering: did you write to John personlly before posting on this blog?

    Stephen Walton
    Marbury

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ah, so you think that orthodoxy, or at least agreeing with you, is the priority, rather than the sp[iritual and human qualities of the candidate?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Richard, are you saying orthodoxy is not a spiritual quality? And as I keep trying to emphasize, this is a matter of the House of Bishops, the General Synod and the Lambeth Conference all agreeing - it is not 'me'.

    ReplyDelete
  19. An interesting comment on divorce, especially for me as I am currently seeing 2 members of my family currently looking into the possibility of future relationships after divorce.
    The big question I have over all this is how much do we go by the highlighted texts by Paul and in the Gospels and how much should we go by the ultimate action that Jesus showed us, grace.
    For me it is the biggest hurdle and I am no where near working out how to cross it. On the one hand I want the best for my family, including life-long happiness, but on the other I know what the Bible says over divorce and if that supersedes grace then it leaves me with a whole other problem!

    Far more worrying are the Bishop-elect's views on human sexuality, especially given the current situation with traditionalists and women bishops. The potential for more stirring of the pot does not bode well in the way the Church of England appears to be being guided.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think that it worth rememebering that Jesus in his day was crucified precisely because he wasn't orthodox. His teaching was revolutionary, just how revolutionary I didn't realise until reading recently 'Jesus through middle eastern eyes. If you ask 'what would Jesus do?' the answer certainly isn't, well he would abide by what General Synod said.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry, these arguments between liberals and the conservative 'orthodox' don't get anywhere. I am going to stop.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Canon Andrew Godsall13 April 2011 at 18:55

    Stephen (Walton)
    No I did not contact John privately before posting here. But if I were calling into question his suitability for a particular public ministry, a judgement that other suitably qualified people had taken (including in the case of Nicholas Holtam, the Archbishop of Canterbury) then I would have contacted him privately first, yes.

    Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  23. Canon Andrew Godsall13 April 2011 at 18:59

    John

    The House of Bishops, the General Synod and the Lambeth Conference do not all agree on the matter of human sexuality - that is absolutely clear!

    Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  24. John,
    I worry more about the Bishop-elect's views on homosexuality, rather than whether or not his wife had an unhappy teenage marriage which ended in divorce. I haven't read your book on 1 Corinthians 7, but Paul does draw a distinction between an equal marriage and an unequal one, and does not discount divorce in the latter case.
    However, it appears to be necessary to have non-orthodox views to be considered a 'rising star'. On Ash Wednesday, we had another one (Giles Fraser) revealing publicly on 'Thought for the Day' that he has no belief in anything after death. 'When you're dead, you're dead', as he put it. A boring Easter he would have, I noted, or as Paul said while trying to expound the basics of the faith to a cynical bunch of Corinthians, 'if only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are more to be pitied than all men'.
    This process, whereby you can get to be a Bishop by raising £36M, running a big city-centre enterprise, and often appearing on the BBC, needs to be thought through, especially by the people he is being appointed to lead. I have no doubt that Nick Holtom is loving and compassionate and visionary - I know a lot of people like that, and they don't get to be bishops.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Canon Andrew Godsall14 April 2011 at 10:15

    Oh and now that 'deeply Christian' lot at Stand Firm are casting stones. I quote
    "And there you have it, an "evangelical" bishop welcomes a false teacher with open arms. Who would have thought?"

    http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27362

    Let's hope that someone will have the courage to do what Bishop James Jones did after regretting writing about Jeffrey John. Time to exercise some real leadership John Richardson?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks for your article John! I thought you raised some good points.

    Imogen Taylor. Derby

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear Richard Brown. In a sermon Professor Colin Gunton once wrote" John Maynard Keynes famously observed that in the long term we are all dead.The Christian response is rather different:in the long term we shall all die, but we shall die in the hope of resurrection".I think Giles Fraser would agree. In fairness to him, he was tilting at Platonic ideas of the immortality of the soul and popular notions of the afterlife as a family reunion where God doesnt get a look in at all.`

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi John,
    Thanks for your courage in addressing seriously the issues of theological convictions and personal morality in selection of bishops. Even here in Australia, where the election process is more transparent, there is still little serious engagement with those issues. The focus is more on their visionary leadership or staff management.
    The timiing of this seems bizarre to me, as well. At the very time the ABC is trying to generate support for a Covenant that restores broken relationships across the Communion, the CoE appoints a bishop who obviously approves of the appointment of Gene Robinson, which sparked the crisis in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oh dear, the good Canon Andrew seems to have got himself into a bit of a lather. Yes, it is time to show some real leadership - leadership which is conspicuous by its absence in the C of E today.

    In any other organisation which was declining, marginalised and divided amongst itself, you would be pointing the finger at the leaders and asking them serious questions. It's about time we started doing the obvious and asking our leaders where they think they are taking us. And that includes Nick Holtom and Giles Fraser ('rising stars') - just how do they propose to grow the C of E?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Andrew Godsall:

    I have just listened to the Ash Wednesday 'Thought for the Day' by Giles Fraser, a canon at St Paul's Cathedral, in which he categorically rejects the idea of life after death. A pillar of the Established Church attacking the doctrines of the Church and the teaching of Christ. And this from the man who started "Inclusive Church" to fight for openly gay clergy. What is the point of such a "church" and such a false teacher? Even the sceptics on "Platitude for the Day" website think he is deeply confused or lacking the courage of his (lack of) convictions.
    Have you any wonder that we have no confidence in these liberal maunderings?

    John R: have you heard this piece? Why is an Anglcian cleric openly attacking Christian doctrine on the BBC?

    Mark B.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Canon Andrew Godsall14 April 2011 at 14:31

    Richard you have an odd view of the Church. The 'leaders' of the Church are God's people. The bishops priests and deacons are there to serve them and support them in the mission they have chosen to be part of. It's God's church - not the Archbishop's or Pope's or anyone elses. It's God's mission. How does God propose to grow the C of E is the question. In serving some of the poor and marginalised in one of the world's major cities, Nick Holtam has found some interesting answers to that question which ring true with what Micah discovered some time ago. Hence his suitability to be a bishop.

    Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  32. We can't all be leaders! Jesus is surely the head of the church with bishops, priests and deacons being appointed to lead under the authority of Jesus, revealed in his word. Jesus is very clear that those who follow him should be servants and exercise leadership in a servant manner but bishops etc are still leaders, surely, with the power and the responsibility that goes along with that.

    I don't know Nick Holtam and hadn't heard of him before reading this blog so the following is not a personal comment about him or his situation but is based on the issues rather than the person discussed above. I think it is important that someone considered for leadership in the church cares about the poor and the marginalised and about issues of justice. I also think it is important that they be 'above reproach' in personal morality and home life (as per Titus) and that they would exercise leadership/teach in accordance with sound doctrine - if they are in the C of E that would mean following the teaching of that church. It seems to me that appointing someone who doesn't uphold church teaching is a bit like appointing as captain of a rugby union team someone who's playing according to league rules. They may be a wonderful rugby player but if they are following a different set of rules they're going to cause trouble!

    Elizabeth B, Wirral

    ReplyDelete
  33. Canon Andrew Godsall14 April 2011 at 18:06

    Elizabeth I think those are fair points in theory.
    The issue of Nick Holtam having married someone who had briefly been married in her teens has been examined by the Church of England and he has been elected a bishop within those rules.
    The issue of homosexuality is something that we know divides Christians and not least the C of E 'leadership'. We know that many bishops believe the Church needs to keep considering this question and we know that some choose to ordain those they know to be gay and in stable relationships, or support those in such a situation. We know that bishops have done this for many years. People like Nick are simply being honest about the way things are. So do you prefer bishops who say one thing in theory but actually turn a blind eye, or do you prefer integrity?

    Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "People like Nick are simply being honest about the way things are. So do you prefer bishops who say one thing in theory but actually turn a blind eye, or do you prefer integrity?

    Andrew Godsall, Exeter"

    We all prefer such bishops to have integrity - especially in this matter, Andrew. It spares us the effort of looking out for the sheep's clothing.

    Derek Smith,
    Singapore

    ReplyDelete
  36. Andrew,
    Of course I like integrity and honesty, much as I like motherhood and apple pie, but a man who signs up to the Authority of Scripture when ordained (and at other times during his ministerial career), and proceeds to bottle out when things get tough, is not being very honest, nor does he have much integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Canon Andrew Godsall15 April 2011 at 16:34

    Richard

    I've heard Nick speak about the authority and the great themes of scripture and not seen any sign of bottling out - quite the reverse in fact, with great clarity.

    Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  38. Andrew: you make your affection for Nick Holtam obvious, but you never quote his actual words.
    The fact is, he has openly and sharply condemned African Anglican leaders for upholding the teaching of Lambeth 98 and the subsequent reaffirmations, and he promoted the views of Gene Robinson, the man whose election triggered the crisis in the Communion. What have you to say on that?
    Given than Salisbury has links with the Church of Sudan, one has to wonder what this will do Communion relations.
    As for Graham Kings' welcome, to me this only shows that 'Fulcrum' despite laying claim to the name of 'evangelical', has only provided cover fro the advancement of liberalism in the hierarchy in the Church of England. Sadly, the group has disappointed many evangelicals (and Tom Wright has now withdrawn from the field of battle). 'Fulcrum' is just the newest manifestation of liberal evangelicalism, in which liberlaism becoems the guiding principle.

    Mark B, W. Kent

    ReplyDelete
  39. Canon Andrew Godsall17 April 2011 at 12:26

    Ahh they accused Jesus of being a liberal I think didn't they......
    I do not know whether he is a sinner or not... all I know etc etc........
    We've always had liberalism in the hierarchy of the C of E Mark....it's what characterises us. It's what attracted me.
    Best wishes for Holy week!!

    Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Ahh they accused Jesus of being a liberal I think didn't they......"

    Where?

    Rather, he exposed "them" as the real liberals i.e. disbelievers in what was written.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Ahh they accused Jesus of being a liberal I think didn't they......"
    - No, "they" didn't. Read the NT - "they" accused him of being a false teacher and having a demon.
    "I do not know whether he is a sinner or not... all I know etc etc........"
    - The healed man confessed Jesus as the Son of Man. always good to folow a story through.

    "We've always had liberalism in the hierarchy of the C of E Mark....it's what characterises us. It's what attracted me."
    - Most living things have parasites as well. The self-selecting hierarchy is like the nomenklatura of the Soviet Union. Human reason is a useful servant but a bad master. What do you make of liberal Giles Fraser's disavowal of life after death? Or liberal Richard Holloway's atheism? Are you attracted to that? Liberalism is the progressive (i.e. step by step) rejection of Christian doctrine in the name of empirical reason - what you find 'reaonable', instead of what is revealed by Christ.
    "Best wishes for Holy week!!"
    Prayers that the living Lord will guide and bless you.
    Mark B., W. Kent

    ReplyDelete
  42. Andrew, I should add that it's pretty "fundamentalist", is it not, to quote the words of John's gospel as if these things really happened or were really said when it's an axiom of liberal biblical criticism that the Fourth Gospel is late and unhistorical and can't be trusted. Liberals believe not the text of Scripture but what they can historically reconstruct and find credible - and in the case, e.g. of Bart Ehrman, what they believe gets less and less every year. That's the trajectory that Giles Fraser, the leader of "Inclusive Church", is on. Do you condemn or support his views?
    Mark B., W. Kent

    ReplyDelete
  43. Canon Andrew Godsall17 April 2011 at 22:02

    The liberalism if the C of E is typified by a generosity Mark. Read Honest to God from the 1960s. Read the study of Anglicanism by Stephen Neill. Read Bob Runcie's excellent book about authority. These give a flavour of the generosity or liberal spirit that is at the heart of the C of E.
    Have a good holy week.

    Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  44. Mark, I read excerpts (and trenchant critiques) of 'Honest to God' MANY years ago and know all about the storm it created, and the condemnation of Robinson by Archbishop Ramsey. I have no time for Bultmann or Tillich rehashed. I find it strange if you consider that book a guide today. And I read Neill's book MANY years ago as well. He was a pretty orthodox man, scarcely a liberal but from conservative Ulster stock. Many evangelicals read Neill with approval. (The private man, of course, was a rather tortured individual.) Theese books are from 40 or 50 years ago. I have some weightier reading suggestions for you, but maybe for another post.

    More importantly, I see you have avoided entirely my question about liberalism in the Cof E TODAY, reflected in Giles Fraser and his "Inclusive Church" whcih I surmise (but correct me if I'm wrong) you may support, and Richard Holloway, who until recently gave a lot of proxy leadership to C of E liberals.
    Do you support the directions of their thought and teaching?

    Mark B., W. Kent

    ReplyDelete
  45. Canon Andrew Godsall18 April 2011 at 08:21

    Mark - forgive me - I was not sure how much you might be aware of Anglican history. I was simply trying to point to books that demonstrate that Anglicanism/the C of e have that generous/liberal heart - which draws many in. A more modern book that addresses the issue is 'Anglicanism - the answer to modernity', which is a collection of essays edited by Duncan Dormer, Jack McDonald and Jeremy Caddick.
    I am not actually a member of any party groups or organisations within the C of E and believe that all of our historic strands have things to contribute. I will not be back online much over Holy Week.

    Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  46. Andrew, we need to be clear about the meaning of "generous". I cannot be "generous" with another's possessions; at best I can be only a faithful steward, at worst, a thief and despoiler. The Apostle Paul calls us to 'guard the faithful deposit', not to make it of as we will.
    The Gospel is not ours to be "generous" with; it is God's appointed way of bringing salvation. The orthodox critique of theological liberalism is that it misuses human reason and gives it priority over divine revelation (indeed, in captivity to modernism, it "problematizes" divine revelation and makes the Bible very indistinct). This is exactly the trajectory that Giles Fraser has found himself upon: he now appears to believe very little of the historic faith (certainly not the promise of life after death), and he is on the same trail that Holloway has gone down - the "hollow way".
    This is what "Inclusive Church" really leads to: a kind of post-Christain synthesis of religiosity. This is not the Gospel and it is not "generosity" - it is the decay of faith. Do you reject what Giles Fraser and Richard Holloway have taught?
    Mark B, W. Kent

    ReplyDelete
  47. Canon Andrew Godsall19 April 2011 at 23:50

    Hi Mark
    I think if you have a problem with Giles Fraser or Richard Holloway the best thing would be to take it up with them directly don't you? Ditto the newly elected Bishop of Salisbury.
    Andrew Godsall, Exeter

    ReplyDelete
  48. Andrew, you are avoiding my question and your response entirely misses the point. Holloway is no longer a Christian and is not subject to the discipline of the Church, whle Fraser's views I of course reject as erroneous. What I was asking was whether *YOU* as a canon of an Anglican cathedral agreed with Canon Fraser, or whether you think Canon Fraser is a false teacher in the Church of England. A simple answer would clarify what you think and how your theological reasoning works. I have mentioned two prominent liberal to you and you, as a liberal, should indicate if Fraser at least is correct in what he says. So tell us, Andrew, what do YOU think?
    Mark B, W. Kent

    ReplyDelete
  49. I think any orthodox Christian should "have a problem with Giles Fraser or Richard Holloway" - the former has abandoned the central hope of the faith and the latter the faith itself. This is the logical outworking of liberalism: abandoning divine revelation for the protean forms of human reason. "Inclusive Church" ends up excluding the apostolic message.

    Mark B., W. Kent

    ReplyDelete
  50. Canon Andrew Godsall24 April 2011 at 19:23

    Happy Easter Mark!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Canon Andrew Godsall,

    Is the Bible still having authority in the Church?

    Simangaliso in South Africa

    ReplyDelete