Over on the Fulcrum website, conversation has once again turned to the state of play at Wycliffe Hall Theological College. A certain 'Jimbo' has posted that according to an internal college memo (and one might wonder how that got into general circulation) Wycliffe faces a "big shortfall" in this year's intake as they have "30+ leavers" compared with "14 firm acceptances of ordinands for next year with 3 more places offered dependent on selection conferences."
According to Jimbo this is "puzzling as Richard Turnbull seems to have been telling people that Wycliffe is full for next year."
Paul Eddy, a self-described ordinand and General Synod member, suggested in a follow-up post that this might be because, with Easter coming so early, registration at all colleges was a bit slow at present. Meanwhile, he added that such "negative overtones" on the Fulcrum website were "a joy to the Devil" and made a plea for a bit of editorial control, only to be put in his place by a certain Greg Yerbury with a negative overtone of his own, suggesting that Eddy get off his "high horse" and adding that "Turnbull's claim that Wycliffe was full was an exaggeration".
Personally, I don't know whether or where Richard Turnbull has claimed Wycliffe Hall is already full for 2008, but I was able to use a modern invention, known as the 'telephone', which (as its name suggests) allows one to talk live at a distance, to speak with Simon Vibert, the author of the internal memo. Simon assured me that recruiting for all colleges is, indeed, a bit slow, but that several candidates were being interviewed at Wycliffe next week. This does seem to contrast with Jimbo's implied '17 tops', but since I have no idea who Jimbo is, I have no idea what was his or her source for these figures.
That's the great thing about blogging though - so much easier to post an anonymous statement than speak to someone the story is actually about. Or am I myself being uncivil?
By the way, it is quite true that Wycliffe have cancelled their Summer School due to lack of support from North America, as was also mentioned by Jimbo. It is a shame, but as Simon Vibert says, it owes a lot to the present economic climate.
Revd John P Richardson
6 May 2008
PS: Each 'telephone' in this country has its own allocated number which can be dialled from other 'telephones'. The number for Wycliffe Hall is 01865 274200 if anyone would like to speak to Simon or another staff member themselves.
No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.
To display this post with the comments, just click on the title.
Showing posts with label Wycliffe Hall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wycliffe Hall. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Saturday, 16 June 2007
McGrath and I: Back to the Future of Evangelical Anglicanism
Dr Alister McGrath's recent venture into the controversy over Wycliffe Hall reminded me of when he came as a visiting lecturer to Moore Theological College, Sydney, when I happened to be a student there in 1993. What was interesting about his visit was the noticeable difference in perspective between his view of Evangelical Anglicanism in the UK at that time and my own. Indeed, so many people asked me about it that I wrote a short article - as it happens, almost exactly fourteen years ago today. Warts and all, I reproduce it below
As you will see, Dr McGrath was at his bullish best, upbeat about the advance of Evanglelicalism and confident about the imminent demise of Liberalism.
Fourteen years on, it is fascinating to look back and compare what was said by both Dr McGrath and myself then, and compare it with where we are now. Remember, this was only a few months on from the vote in General Synod to approve the ordination of women. Oak Hill was being threatened with closure and 'Open Evangelicalism' was a new phenomenon. I will leave the reader to judge whether Dr McGrath was right. For my own part, the biggest surprise is to realise that within a couple of years of my return, I would be working closely with folks from Forward in Faith.
-------------------------------
As you will see, Dr McGrath was at his bullish best, upbeat about the advance of Evanglelicalism and confident about the imminent demise of Liberalism.
Fourteen years on, it is fascinating to look back and compare what was said by both Dr McGrath and myself then, and compare it with where we are now. Remember, this was only a few months on from the vote in General Synod to approve the ordination of women. Oak Hill was being threatened with closure and 'Open Evangelicalism' was a new phenomenon. I will leave the reader to judge whether Dr McGrath was right. For my own part, the biggest surprise is to realise that within a couple of years of my return, I would be working closely with folks from Forward in Faith.
-------------------------------
UK Evangelicalism - Optimism or Pessimism?
During his recent visit to Moore College, Dr. Alister McGrath presented an optimistic view of Evangelicalism in the United Kingdom. Dr. McGrath described a situation where Evangelicalism is sweeping the field. Not only is it alive and well at the grass-roots level, but increasingly Evangelicals are dominating the Ecclesiastical hierarchy, particularly in the appointment of Bishops. Liberalism is on the run. The future is most definitely `Evangelical Shaped'.
During and after Dr. McGrath's visit, several people asked me whether I shared his point of view. I think the reason for this was that not only I but other visitors to and from the UK in recent years had painted a rather different picture. In response I didn't particularly want to be a wet-blanket, especially since part of Dr. McGrath's appeal is his sheer enthusiasm for the Gospel. However, in all honesty I have had to say that I beg to differ with him, although I have found it useful to think through why he and I respond to the same data - the situation in the UK - so differently.
Was Corinth Evangelical?
One question I found useful in clarifying the issue was to ask whether the Corinthians were Evangelical. In terms of what we would hope for or endorse in church life, the answer would probably be "No". But if we asked, "Were the Corinthians a product of an evangelical Gospel being preached?" the answer would clearly be "Yes".
The situation is similar in the UK at the present. There are many signs that the Gospel is alive and well and being preached effectively. However, the situation in the churches which is emerging as a result is, in my opinion, hardly one that inspires confidence.
The Church Papers
This was further underlined for me by the discovery in the College library of stocks of the UK Church Times and Church of England Newspaper. Anyone who wants to form an opinion of what is happening in the UK at the moment could do worse than spend an hour perusing these journals. After four months in the Sydney Diocese they came as a real shock to the system. The impression one gains is of a Church divided and squabbling, strong on opinions but weak on doctrine and lacking in a real interest in the salvation of that part of the world within which it is set - very Corinthian in fact!
The Evangelical Exodus
What is worse is the exodus of Evangelicals from traditional Evangelicalism. The Church of England Newspaper itself has apparently, "ceased to be [the] Church of England evangelical party weekly, and opted for a more `balanced' coverage of Christian news". (Quoted from a recent letter.) Previously the CEN would have been `Evangelical and proud of it'. It seems hardly credible that in the traditionally struggling world of newspapers a journal would desert a growing target audience for a diminishing one. Why, then, has the CEN ceased to be "the evangelical party weekly"?
The same phenomenon is seen amongst Evangelical Bishops, not one of whom would qualify as a potential J.C. Ryle. Instead, they seem to accept the notion of Anglican `comprehensiveness' with `Collegiality' (i.e. sticking together) being apparently more important on the bench of Bishops than doctrinal orthodoxy.
Ecclesiastical Piracy
Meanwhile, Oak Hill, which is one of the last traditionally Evangelical colleges, is under threat of closure. Even Dr. McGrath called this an act of "Ecclesiastical piracy", but it is hardly being fought against `tooth and nail' by either Evangelicals or their Bishops. Behind the proposed closure was the need to get rid of three Theological Colleges. A Commission set up under the Bishop of Lincoln decided to be `even handed' and instead of simply closing those colleges which were empty decided to close one each of the Anglo-Catholic, Liberal and Evangelical Colleges. Oak Hill's relative conservative stance actually seems to have made it the most vulnerable of the Evangelical colleges and therefore the one which is easiest to close.
Doctrinal Laxity
Meanwhile, there is amongst UK Evangelicals an appalling laxity of doctrine and spirituality. As a result, people who start off as Evangelicals drift into Catholic or Liberal practices and teachings. Yet this is not seen as leaving Evangelicalism but rather as `broadening' it. (The `in' term apparently is "Open Evangelical".) Dr. McGrath described this broadening process as one of the strengths of modern Evangelicalism and a sign of life. He said that an older Liberal Evangelical group had died out because no one was interested in it. One suspects, however, that the reason is rather that no one recognized it as distinctive any longer.
The Ordination of Women
The problem has been exacerbated by the debate on the ordination of women and its aftermath. Evangelicals were entirely wrong-footed in this debate which had hardly begun to deal with the theological issues before the crucial vote last November. (Witness the sudden flurry of letters on the meaning of kephalē in the church press.)
The decision itself was reached on pragmatic and sociologically driven grounds in a Synod where Evangelicals were divided and hamstrung. Now the debate has become even more pragmatic, moving from theology to ecclesiology with increasing bitterness over the way the victors will divide the spoils. A notable result has been the formation of an `unholy alliance' between Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics in the so-called "Forward in Faith" group. For Anglo-Catholics this seems to mean masses of Masses. For Evangelicals it is the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible. All of this hardly suggests imagination, insight and clear theological thinking, let alone a movement `forward'!
Supernova
My own view is that Evangelicalism in the UK is sick to the point of death. There was indeed an explosion of life in the 1970s. But this was like a star turning Supernova. It created a lot of light and heat and blew off an expanding ring of gas. But the star at the centre which powered the whole display is collapsing and dying. The failure of Evangelicals to respond adequately to key issues, an embarrassment about old allegiances and the search for new `labels' to redefine Evangelical identity all point to a movement in crisis.
Causes and Cures
In thinking about the situation at home, I have tried to answer for myself the question as to how we got into the mess we are presently in. It seems to me that the causes of our problems were, in many ways, also the causes of our success. For Dr. McGrath is quite right in saying that in terms of numbers, influence and morale Evangelicals are the most significant Christian group not only in the Church of England but in the whole of the UK.
It seems that the roots of success lay in the 1950s with the emergence of a new intellectual Evangelical leadership. Reading the spines of the older Tyndale Commentaries will give you a good idea of who many of these people were but they included the likes of Jim Packer, John Stott, Alec Motyer and so on.
Evangelicalism at the time was embattled and defensive, but these men built on a firm historical, doctrinal and even liturgical foundation represented at the grass roots by the typical `CPAS' (Church Pastoral Aid Society) Parish. They can be credited with turning the tide in favour of Evangelicalism and beginning what genuinely turned into an Evangelical revival.
From Keele ...
In 1968 I went to Keele University. What is rather more important is that in 1967 so did John Stott at the first National Evangelical Anglican Congress. He took with him many Anglicans who affirmed their commitment not only to traditional Evangelical principles but also to working them out within the Church of England. Keele '67 represented the high-water mark of traditional Post-war Anglican Evangelicalism. However, this was the '60s and the whole of English society was in ferment. Not only was this so, but a new religious phenomenon was about to dominate the landscape in the form of the Charismatic Movement.
... to Nottingham
It is hard to believe now, but in the 1960s the Charismatic Movement in the UK was strictly an `under the counter' organization, talked about in hushed whispers. However, it was about to bring to the UK scene an injection of life which would spark the Evangelical Supernova, largely through the efforts of David Watson at St. Michael Le Belfry, York.
By the second NEAC, at Nottingham in 1977, the `worship' agenda was dominated by the Charismatics with David Watson's team playing a major role. The intellectual agenda, meanwhile, was dominated by the political left. Much of the momentum for this had come from Francis Schaeffer and the L'Abri Fellowship, but UK Evangelicals, lacking his Continental rigour in philosophy, had produced an uneven mixture of politics and sociology, with the Old Testament being quarried largely for paradigms of social reform.
The flavour of NEAC '77 can be gained by reading the pre-conference discussion documents in Obeying Christ in a Changing World. Interestingly, however, Alec Motyer preached a sermon at the Congress which many judged to be out of step with its mood, but which seemed to reflect his own uneasiness at the direction in which things were moving.
For all its faults, NEAC '77 was a massive event, both in terms of numbers and its impact on the wider church. The Anglican world now centred on Evangelicals and (if you had been there) St. John's College, Nottingham. The movement was not merely confident but unstoppable. However, NEAC '77 was another high-water mark, for the theological agenda, whilst thin, was still underpinned by the assumptions of an earlier Evangelicalism. All this would change in the next ten years.
Expansion
From 1977 onwards, Evangelicalism in the UK expanded rapidly. Crucial to this was the domestication of the Charismatic Movement and the increasing respectability of the House Churches. By the early 80s the Charismatic Movement could no longer be described a `Neo-Pentecostal'. The emphasis moved away from a distinctive `Baptism in the Spirit' accompanied invariably by `Praying in Tongues' to a more general belief in the supernatural activity of God with an emphasis on physical and emotional healing.
At the same time, the House Churches, which were by now too big to fit into houses, moved not only into schools halls and cinemas but into mainstream church life, particularly through the influence of men like Roger Forster (of the Icthus churches), Gerald Coates and Clive Calver at the Evangelical Alliance. It should be stressed that these men are not villains! However, their theology was no longer that of earlier evangelicalism and their appeal was to the new generation of younger Christians.
The Intellectual Crisis
The key question, however, is why Evangelicalism, whilst growing in numbers, failed to grow in depth. The answer lies, I would suggest, in what was happening in the Theological Colleges in face of the sociological challenge of the '60s and the theological challenge of the Charismatic Movement.
The '60s was not a period of time but a phenomenon of culture during which life was revolutionized in the UK. Liverpool was the world centre of pop music, thanks to the Beatles. London was the centre for fashion and photography via Mary Quant, David Bailey, Twiggy, Kings Road and so on. Crucially, however, anything pre-1960 was seen as irrelevant which included, of course, the theological and ecclesiological heritage of the Packers, Stotts and Motyers. It is not insignificant that the '60s saw a burgeoning of new music, beginning with the likes of Youth Praise and Faith, Folk and Clarity, as well as the publishing of the first genuinely modern services of `Series 3'.
Meanwhile, the Charismatic Movement was claiming, contra another debate in the '60s, that God was not merely "not dead" but alive and kicking and able to do all the things he did 2,000 years ago. However, the Charismatic Movement was conscientiously discontinuous with traditional Evangelicalism. Its roots were in 19th Century Pentecostalism and specifically the Asuha Street Revival, so that even Montanists could be claimed as fellow-travellers. Moreover, the Charismatic Movement provided a rationale whereby God could speak and act today without recourse to `theology', which was an area still dominated by German Liberals.
The result was to produce a generation of candidates and staff at Theological Colleges who had every reason to abandon both the formularies and intellectual rigour of past generations. The result was that people continued to be converted but the pastors were not doctrinally equipped to instruct them.
The Way Ahead?
As the '70s turned into the '80s matters have worsened. The Charismatic emphasis has moved from healing to prophecy. It is no longer necessary to read the Bible (much less study it) to hear a word from God. God speaks directly, through vision and word of knowledge. Meanwhile, the UK is a society without a history. Patriotism is more fashionable in Australia than in England!
Anglican theological education, meanwhile, is under threat not merely from the closure of Colleges but the shortening of training to two years and the shifting of responsibility to University departments of Theology. Evangelicalism is metamorphosing into something which would be unrecognizable to the men of the '50s. Furthermore, I personally doubt whether, on its own, an organization like Dick Lucas' Proclamation Trust is able to save the day particularly since it is relatively wedded to the class structures of English society and is largely perceived as negative and reactionary by outsiders.
Whatever the answer is, it will require a profound change in the intellectual climate amongst traditional Evangelicals, coupled with a commitment to the Gospel which allows a radical challenge to the sociological and ecclesiological trends of the present.
You cannot head off a stampede by calling the cows to come back. If the present debâcle in English Evangelicalism is to be arrested it will require people of courage and vision who are prepared to go out ahead of the herd, to kick, to shout and to make a noise, so that those who are genuinely Christian, but who are so much like sheep without a shepherd, may be brought back to the good pastures.
Revd John P Richardson
17 June 1993
Friday, 25 May 2007
Richard Turnbull: telling it how it is
The headline in The Independent is certainly eye-catching: "The man who says we are all going to hell". It is, however, inevitably misleading, since the man they are referring to is only Richard Turnbull, the principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, who made the comment in a welcoming speech at the Reform Conference last year. (You can read a transcript of it here.)
Of course, the man who really put the cat amongst the pigeons regarding the dangers of hell was called Jesus, and what he said has already been widely reported. To give just one example, amongst his last reported comments to his followers was this: "If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned." (See John 15:6)
No doubt, the columnists at The Independent (a paper that has never lived up to its name when it comes to reporting Christian affairs, as witnessed by this 'Leader' on the same subject) would regard this as best not mentioned. But the rest of us should surely be grateful to Turnbull. He has told it like it is, and now the rest of us have to do the same.
Recently I have been visiting a local couple to prepare them for their child's baptism. The previous visits have been enjoyable and, on my part, encouraging as we have explored what Christianity means. On the last occasion, I decided to run through 'Two Ways to Live', a presentation of the gospel which uses six pictures to make six basic points about what it means to be a Christian.
This is how I presented it: (1) God has made us to live under his rule, (2) We have rebelled against his rule and gone our own way, (3) Therefore God judges us and we face both physical and spiritual death, (4) Jesus has died for our sins, taking their punishment (yes, penal substitution was in there), (5) God raised Jesus from the dead, and now he reigns in heaven as King, (6) We are called to give up our rebellion against God and live under Jesus' kingship.
The problem is, I wanted to leave out step 3 - that God judges us, and condemns us to death and to hell. I was happy to talk about God and creation, happy to talk about Christ's death and resurrection, happy even to talk about living under his rule. But I felt awkward and embarrassed talking about judgement and hell. And I know I'm not alone!
In fact, the whole point of the article in The Independent is surely to seek to embarrass Turnbull and those who share his views. Take this closing remark: "One blogger on a liberal Christian website jokily suggested that Dr Turnbull was himself a secret liberal, who has infiltrated the evangelical movement to discredit it from within."
Hell is an embarrassment to many of us. And that is why we should be thankful to Richard Turnbull. What would Jesus do? He would tell it like it is, which apparently means that hell is a real and present danger to all of us.
So, thank you Richard. You've put all of us on the spot, where we belong!
Revd John P Richardson
25 May 2007
If you enjoyed this post you may also enjoy:
Why “Open” means closed and “Conservative” means radical
Why theological colleges matter
Wither Wycliffe?
Of course, the man who really put the cat amongst the pigeons regarding the dangers of hell was called Jesus, and what he said has already been widely reported. To give just one example, amongst his last reported comments to his followers was this: "If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned." (See John 15:6)
No doubt, the columnists at The Independent (a paper that has never lived up to its name when it comes to reporting Christian affairs, as witnessed by this 'Leader' on the same subject) would regard this as best not mentioned. But the rest of us should surely be grateful to Turnbull. He has told it like it is, and now the rest of us have to do the same.
Recently I have been visiting a local couple to prepare them for their child's baptism. The previous visits have been enjoyable and, on my part, encouraging as we have explored what Christianity means. On the last occasion, I decided to run through 'Two Ways to Live', a presentation of the gospel which uses six pictures to make six basic points about what it means to be a Christian.
This is how I presented it: (1) God has made us to live under his rule, (2) We have rebelled against his rule and gone our own way, (3) Therefore God judges us and we face both physical and spiritual death, (4) Jesus has died for our sins, taking their punishment (yes, penal substitution was in there), (5) God raised Jesus from the dead, and now he reigns in heaven as King, (6) We are called to give up our rebellion against God and live under Jesus' kingship.
The problem is, I wanted to leave out step 3 - that God judges us, and condemns us to death and to hell. I was happy to talk about God and creation, happy to talk about Christ's death and resurrection, happy even to talk about living under his rule. But I felt awkward and embarrassed talking about judgement and hell. And I know I'm not alone!
In fact, the whole point of the article in The Independent is surely to seek to embarrass Turnbull and those who share his views. Take this closing remark: "One blogger on a liberal Christian website jokily suggested that Dr Turnbull was himself a secret liberal, who has infiltrated the evangelical movement to discredit it from within."
Hell is an embarrassment to many of us. And that is why we should be thankful to Richard Turnbull. What would Jesus do? He would tell it like it is, which apparently means that hell is a real and present danger to all of us.
So, thank you Richard. You've put all of us on the spot, where we belong!
Revd John P Richardson
25 May 2007
If you enjoyed this post you may also enjoy:
Why “Open” means closed and “Conservative” means radical
Why theological colleges matter
Wither Wycliffe?
Monday, 21 May 2007
Time to decide on women priests
The ongoing discussions about the situation at Wycliffe Hall theological college show it is high time the Church of England made up its mind on women priests.
Not that it should decide whether or not it is going to have women priests. But it really should decided whether or not it is still in the so-called 'period of reception', when those who disagree with women being in the priesthood are still regarded as full members of the Church.
Like it or not - and many people on both sides of the argument do not - the reality is that the Church of England was able to introduce the ordination of women to the priesthood on the basis that it was not entirely a 'done deal'. Instead, there was to be a period during which the Church would discern the rightness, or otherwise, of taking this step.
As a recent General Synod document indicates, this is a subtly nuanced idea:
"It does not mean the process by which the ministry of women is accepted in the Church. Instead it is used to refer to the process in which the Church of England reflects with the universal Church on the authenticity of its decision to ordain women." (Women Bishops in the Church of England: A report of the House of Bishops’ Working Party on Women in the Episcopate, 2004)
Nevertheless, underlying this language is a simple principle - albeit one that is often forgotten by those whose minds are made up - that the Church of England officially recognizes both that there are quite different views on this subject and that both are allowable in it ranks.
There is therefore to be no discrimination in the process of recruitment, appointment or preferment of clergy. Moreover, special provision has been made both for individual clergy and for collective congregations where there is an objection to a woman acting in a priestly or presbyteral role, via the provisions of an Act of Synod.
What needs to be stated clearly is that it matters not one whit whether some people find this objectionable. The reality is that these provisions were made to ease the introduction of the ordination of women, and they have not been repealed.
However, the sad reality is that whilst they have not been repealed, they are frequently being reneged on. Speaking from the position of a parish which has passed Resolution C (the petition for 'extended episcopal oversight' to be provided by Provincial Episcopal Visitor), I know that whilst we have simply, and very carefully, done what the Church of England officially allows us to do, we have been treated as if we have somehow behaved like 'rotters'. At one stage the phrase 'leaving us' was even used about our relationship with our Diocese!
This same attitude is also being revealed in discussions about Wycliffe Hall. It seems, for example, that Revd Simon Vibert, recently appointed as Vice-Principal, has contributed to a Latimer House paper which states, amongst other things, that "because of the teaching of 1 Tim. 2:11-15, we [the authors] contend that it is inappropriate for a woman to be a congregational leader in a solo capacity or head of a team ministry".
This is a conclusion with which not everyone agrees. Within the Church of England, however, it is not a statement with which everyone disagrees. More importantly, it is a sentiment which the Church of England officially says is legitimate - unlike, we might observe, the assertion that sex between people of the same gender is allowable. Simon Vibert's views - at least in this regard - are true to Anglicanism.
Clearly, there are many people who are deeply unhappy about this - both that people should be allowed to disagree with the ordination of women to the priesthood (and, by extension, their consecration to the episcopate) and that same-gender sexual acts are not endorsed for laypeople or permitted for clergy.
But that is the way it is. The Church of England has a position on women's ordination. Arguably it is wrong (though that cuts both ways). But what cannot be disputed is that the present position simply is the case. It is those who react to Vibert's position as if it were somehow not legitimate who are currently acting in an un-Anglican fashion.
Meanwhile, if we are to act fairly, and above all honestly - and honesty is surely a Christian virtue - we should make up our minds to abide by the spirit of the present position and make the appropriate practical applications.
Revd John P Richardson
21 May 2007
Not that it should decide whether or not it is going to have women priests. But it really should decided whether or not it is still in the so-called 'period of reception', when those who disagree with women being in the priesthood are still regarded as full members of the Church.
Like it or not - and many people on both sides of the argument do not - the reality is that the Church of England was able to introduce the ordination of women to the priesthood on the basis that it was not entirely a 'done deal'. Instead, there was to be a period during which the Church would discern the rightness, or otherwise, of taking this step.
As a recent General Synod document indicates, this is a subtly nuanced idea:
"It does not mean the process by which the ministry of women is accepted in the Church. Instead it is used to refer to the process in which the Church of England reflects with the universal Church on the authenticity of its decision to ordain women." (Women Bishops in the Church of England: A report of the House of Bishops’ Working Party on Women in the Episcopate, 2004)
Nevertheless, underlying this language is a simple principle - albeit one that is often forgotten by those whose minds are made up - that the Church of England officially recognizes both that there are quite different views on this subject and that both are allowable in it ranks.
There is therefore to be no discrimination in the process of recruitment, appointment or preferment of clergy. Moreover, special provision has been made both for individual clergy and for collective congregations where there is an objection to a woman acting in a priestly or presbyteral role, via the provisions of an Act of Synod.
What needs to be stated clearly is that it matters not one whit whether some people find this objectionable. The reality is that these provisions were made to ease the introduction of the ordination of women, and they have not been repealed.
However, the sad reality is that whilst they have not been repealed, they are frequently being reneged on. Speaking from the position of a parish which has passed Resolution C (the petition for 'extended episcopal oversight' to be provided by Provincial Episcopal Visitor), I know that whilst we have simply, and very carefully, done what the Church of England officially allows us to do, we have been treated as if we have somehow behaved like 'rotters'. At one stage the phrase 'leaving us' was even used about our relationship with our Diocese!
This same attitude is also being revealed in discussions about Wycliffe Hall. It seems, for example, that Revd Simon Vibert, recently appointed as Vice-Principal, has contributed to a Latimer House paper which states, amongst other things, that "because of the teaching of 1 Tim. 2:11-15, we [the authors] contend that it is inappropriate for a woman to be a congregational leader in a solo capacity or head of a team ministry".
This is a conclusion with which not everyone agrees. Within the Church of England, however, it is not a statement with which everyone disagrees. More importantly, it is a sentiment which the Church of England officially says is legitimate - unlike, we might observe, the assertion that sex between people of the same gender is allowable. Simon Vibert's views - at least in this regard - are true to Anglicanism.
Clearly, there are many people who are deeply unhappy about this - both that people should be allowed to disagree with the ordination of women to the priesthood (and, by extension, their consecration to the episcopate) and that same-gender sexual acts are not endorsed for laypeople or permitted for clergy.
But that is the way it is. The Church of England has a position on women's ordination. Arguably it is wrong (though that cuts both ways). But what cannot be disputed is that the present position simply is the case. It is those who react to Vibert's position as if it were somehow not legitimate who are currently acting in an un-Anglican fashion.
Meanwhile, if we are to act fairly, and above all honestly - and honesty is surely a Christian virtue - we should make up our minds to abide by the spirit of the present position and make the appropriate practical applications.
Revd John P Richardson
21 May 2007
Sunday, 20 May 2007
Why theological colleges matter
With all the fuss going on about Wycliffe Hall, I was minded to look up an article I wrote back in 2003 for New Directions. Titled 'A Tale of Two Colleges', it compared my experiences of training at St John's College, Nottingham, in the mid 1970s and then at Moore College, Sydney, in the early 1990s.
It was the latter experience which finally persuaded me of the importance of a thorough theological education for evangelical clergy. But it also brought home to me the opposition to this concept which existed in the evangelical camp. Specifically, I noted that, "until very recently ordinands who had come up through the ‘Bash’ camps were encouraged to go to Oxford or Cambridge, not because of the strength of teaching in those universities but so that they might act as informal ‘chaplains’ to undergraduates from those same camps."
Bash's influence is indicated in this comment by Canon Michael Green, principal of St John's during most of my time there: "(Bash) often regarded theologians with suspicion and even mistrust. In his view too many of them knew all about the inner workings of the car, but had never learnt to drive it properly."
Remarkably, I discovered on my return to England from Moore College that this attitude still prevailed. Ordinands from evangelical churches were still being encouraged to go to Ridley or Wycliffe, not to study theology but to do 'student work'.
Fortunately, Alister McGrath did much as principal of Wycliffe Hall to enhance the college's teaching reputation, so that regardless of what took them to Oxford, evangelical students could still get a good theological preparation whilst they were there. However, when the Revd David Peterson arrived from Moore College to be the new principal of Oak Hill, he discovered that one of his biggest problems was getting evangelical churches to send students there to study, rather than to the Oxbridge colleges to concentrate on work amongst students.
Whatever may be happening at Oxford, therefore, must be seen in the light of a sea-change, particularly amongst Conservative Evangelicals who, it must be admitted, have been the hardest to persuade regarding theological education. Sadly, many amongst this camp who have admired the diocese of Sydney have not realised the demanding theological training undergone by Sydney ordinands. Thus even today, when Sydney candidates study full-time for four years, many English ordinands only do two years. And unfortunately, it still shows.
Thanks to Dr Peterson, there is now a generation of English evangelicals who see theological preparation as fundamental to their ministry, and who are beginning to be in a position to encourage and to teach the next generation themselves. With this in mind, perhaps others might be prepared to recognise that, even if Wycliffe Hall moves in a more theologically conservative direction (and that is a major assumption), the result need not be a descent into intellectual obscurantism.
Revd John P Richardson
20 May 2007
It was the latter experience which finally persuaded me of the importance of a thorough theological education for evangelical clergy. But it also brought home to me the opposition to this concept which existed in the evangelical camp. Specifically, I noted that, "until very recently ordinands who had come up through the ‘Bash’ camps were encouraged to go to Oxford or Cambridge, not because of the strength of teaching in those universities but so that they might act as informal ‘chaplains’ to undergraduates from those same camps."
Bash's influence is indicated in this comment by Canon Michael Green, principal of St John's during most of my time there: "(Bash) often regarded theologians with suspicion and even mistrust. In his view too many of them knew all about the inner workings of the car, but had never learnt to drive it properly."
Remarkably, I discovered on my return to England from Moore College that this attitude still prevailed. Ordinands from evangelical churches were still being encouraged to go to Ridley or Wycliffe, not to study theology but to do 'student work'.
Fortunately, Alister McGrath did much as principal of Wycliffe Hall to enhance the college's teaching reputation, so that regardless of what took them to Oxford, evangelical students could still get a good theological preparation whilst they were there. However, when the Revd David Peterson arrived from Moore College to be the new principal of Oak Hill, he discovered that one of his biggest problems was getting evangelical churches to send students there to study, rather than to the Oxbridge colleges to concentrate on work amongst students.
Whatever may be happening at Oxford, therefore, must be seen in the light of a sea-change, particularly amongst Conservative Evangelicals who, it must be admitted, have been the hardest to persuade regarding theological education. Sadly, many amongst this camp who have admired the diocese of Sydney have not realised the demanding theological training undergone by Sydney ordinands. Thus even today, when Sydney candidates study full-time for four years, many English ordinands only do two years. And unfortunately, it still shows.
Thanks to Dr Peterson, there is now a generation of English evangelicals who see theological preparation as fundamental to their ministry, and who are beginning to be in a position to encourage and to teach the next generation themselves. With this in mind, perhaps others might be prepared to recognise that, even if Wycliffe Hall moves in a more theologically conservative direction (and that is a major assumption), the result need not be a descent into intellectual obscurantism.
Revd John P Richardson
20 May 2007
Friday, 18 May 2007
Wither Wycliffe?
Ed: Open Evangelical opinions on this are now being aired here. Liberal opinion may be read here. Conservative opinion may be read here. I have also further blogged on Why theological colleges matter.
Also ... I should probably have spelt the headline as "Whither", as in "Where to ...". Yet for some reason when I think about the headline I am reminded of C S Lewis' villain, John Wither, from That Hideous Strength. Central to the plot of this wonderful book is an 'Oxbridge' style college in a fictitious university town 'somewhere in England'. Wither's name hints at the way that his personality is disappearing - 'withering away' - under the influence of the evil to which he has opened himself up. Freud would no doubt be impressed, but somewhere that image of all not being well at an outwardly genteel college must have stuck with me when I titled this blog.
Earlier this week, even the Guardian could not resist a Sun-like headline above its article on allegations of 'bullying' at Wycliffe Hall Theological College: Unholy row at Oxford's college for clergy.
Ostensibly, the story, posted by Stephen Bates, was about concerns over the management style of the new principal, the Revd Richard Turnbull, described as "a vicar from Basingstoke and a former accountant without senior academic managerial experience". Bates might also have mentioned that Turnbull previously used his accountancy experience to chair a General Synod working party on clergy salaries, and that he has a BA from Reading, a first-class honours degree in theology from Durham and wrote his doctoral thesis on “Evangelical Theology and Social Reform in the Nineteenth Century” (see here). But maybe that would have spoiled the image of an inexperienced jobbing vicar and former accountant taking over a hallowed institution.
Of course, it is perfectly possible that there is indeed a problem with Turnbull's managerial style. That is for others to judge. However, the discerning reader will also notice that Bates has another, quite different, axe to grind, which is that Turnbull is allegedly replacing the existing staff with "conservative evangelicals".
According to Bates, therefore, the dispute over bullying allegations "appears to mirror splits in worldwide Anglicanism - and the Church of England - over theology and homosexuality, which have been aggressively led by conservative evangelical groups."
Yet this conclusion is by no means self-evident, not least because it implies that Wycliffe Hall has, until now, reflected a less-than-conservative position on theology generally and homosexuality in particular. On the contrary, however, Wycliffe is historically one of the Church of England's more evangelical, and in the broad sense, conservative, institutions. The former principal, Alister McGrath, was in no doubt about his own theological sympathies and one of the current tutors, Andrew Goddard, has robustly presented the conservative view on homosexuality in an online debate with Giles Goddard of Inclusive Church.
Managerial bullying, meanwhile, may carried out by liberals as much as by conservatives. What may be of concern to Bates (and others), therefore, is perhaps not an issue of managerial style, nor that Wycliffe is ceasing to be 'liberal' on matters of theology or sexuality (which it never really was), but that it is becoming more clearly identified with conservative as distinct from open evangelicalism, which is the other direction in which the college might have travelled under a new principal.
Yet here one must ask why it should not. There are, after all, a number of theological colleges of other traditions: liberal, anglo-catholic and 'open' evangelical. Up to the present, however, only one, Oak Hill in north London, is identified with conservative evangelicalism, so why should there not be another, particularly as the number of conservative evangelicals in the Church of England appears to be growing?
The answer, of course, is that institutionally, the one thing the Church of England loathes more than a conservative evangelical is a conservative evangelical who is theologically educated. Theological education is supposed to dispel clear conviction and move people towards the liberal centre of the Church. That is why evangelicals are sent into non-evangelical situations in order for their understanding to be 'broadened'. (Oddly enough, one never seems to hear of a liberal ordinand who needs to be 'narrowed'.) In a 'broad church' breadth is good, even if depth may be at a premium.
Canon Patience Purchas' recent extraordinary outburst against Oak Hill was sadly symptomatic of a deeply ingrained dislike of that college amongst Directors of Ordinands in many dioceses. Similarly, the attempt to close Oak Hill in the early 1990s was certainly not justified on the grounds that it could not attract students, and one must therefore ask if there were other motivations.
The fear that a second college might fall into 'enemy hands' may well be behind some of what is happening vis a vis Wycliffe Hall, hopefully not amongst the staff, but perhaps amongst outside observers. Sadly, we may see even more unholy rows in the future.
Meanwhile, we must remember the words of my old friend Revd Harry Sutton, who once said that we must "fight to the death" for a theological college like Oak Hill. Harry saw, with absolute clarity, that English evangelicalism could not be revived without an intellectual centre. Let us hope and pray that whatever problems there may be at Wycliffe, the college, and evangelicalism, will emerge stronger when they are resolved.
Revd John P Richardson
18 May 2007
Also ... I should probably have spelt the headline as "Whither", as in "Where to ...". Yet for some reason when I think about the headline I am reminded of C S Lewis' villain, John Wither, from That Hideous Strength. Central to the plot of this wonderful book is an 'Oxbridge' style college in a fictitious university town 'somewhere in England'. Wither's name hints at the way that his personality is disappearing - 'withering away' - under the influence of the evil to which he has opened himself up. Freud would no doubt be impressed, but somewhere that image of all not being well at an outwardly genteel college must have stuck with me when I titled this blog.
Earlier this week, even the Guardian could not resist a Sun-like headline above its article on allegations of 'bullying' at Wycliffe Hall Theological College: Unholy row at Oxford's college for clergy.
Ostensibly, the story, posted by Stephen Bates, was about concerns over the management style of the new principal, the Revd Richard Turnbull, described as "a vicar from Basingstoke and a former accountant without senior academic managerial experience". Bates might also have mentioned that Turnbull previously used his accountancy experience to chair a General Synod working party on clergy salaries, and that he has a BA from Reading, a first-class honours degree in theology from Durham and wrote his doctoral thesis on “Evangelical Theology and Social Reform in the Nineteenth Century” (see here). But maybe that would have spoiled the image of an inexperienced jobbing vicar and former accountant taking over a hallowed institution.
Of course, it is perfectly possible that there is indeed a problem with Turnbull's managerial style. That is for others to judge. However, the discerning reader will also notice that Bates has another, quite different, axe to grind, which is that Turnbull is allegedly replacing the existing staff with "conservative evangelicals".
According to Bates, therefore, the dispute over bullying allegations "appears to mirror splits in worldwide Anglicanism - and the Church of England - over theology and homosexuality, which have been aggressively led by conservative evangelical groups."
Yet this conclusion is by no means self-evident, not least because it implies that Wycliffe Hall has, until now, reflected a less-than-conservative position on theology generally and homosexuality in particular. On the contrary, however, Wycliffe is historically one of the Church of England's more evangelical, and in the broad sense, conservative, institutions. The former principal, Alister McGrath, was in no doubt about his own theological sympathies and one of the current tutors, Andrew Goddard, has robustly presented the conservative view on homosexuality in an online debate with Giles Goddard of Inclusive Church.
Managerial bullying, meanwhile, may carried out by liberals as much as by conservatives. What may be of concern to Bates (and others), therefore, is perhaps not an issue of managerial style, nor that Wycliffe is ceasing to be 'liberal' on matters of theology or sexuality (which it never really was), but that it is becoming more clearly identified with conservative as distinct from open evangelicalism, which is the other direction in which the college might have travelled under a new principal.
Yet here one must ask why it should not. There are, after all, a number of theological colleges of other traditions: liberal, anglo-catholic and 'open' evangelical. Up to the present, however, only one, Oak Hill in north London, is identified with conservative evangelicalism, so why should there not be another, particularly as the number of conservative evangelicals in the Church of England appears to be growing?
The answer, of course, is that institutionally, the one thing the Church of England loathes more than a conservative evangelical is a conservative evangelical who is theologically educated. Theological education is supposed to dispel clear conviction and move people towards the liberal centre of the Church. That is why evangelicals are sent into non-evangelical situations in order for their understanding to be 'broadened'. (Oddly enough, one never seems to hear of a liberal ordinand who needs to be 'narrowed'.) In a 'broad church' breadth is good, even if depth may be at a premium.
Canon Patience Purchas' recent extraordinary outburst against Oak Hill was sadly symptomatic of a deeply ingrained dislike of that college amongst Directors of Ordinands in many dioceses. Similarly, the attempt to close Oak Hill in the early 1990s was certainly not justified on the grounds that it could not attract students, and one must therefore ask if there were other motivations.
The fear that a second college might fall into 'enemy hands' may well be behind some of what is happening vis a vis Wycliffe Hall, hopefully not amongst the staff, but perhaps amongst outside observers. Sadly, we may see even more unholy rows in the future.
Meanwhile, we must remember the words of my old friend Revd Harry Sutton, who once said that we must "fight to the death" for a theological college like Oak Hill. Harry saw, with absolute clarity, that English evangelicalism could not be revived without an intellectual centre. Let us hope and pray that whatever problems there may be at Wycliffe, the college, and evangelicalism, will emerge stronger when they are resolved.
Revd John P Richardson
18 May 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)