A moment of clarity for me:
In evangelicalism, is the authority of the Bible absolute? Or is it the authority of the evangelical theological system?
In debates about the New Perspective and other issues, the notion of a 'classic evangelical' position is bandied about as a bit of a trump card: if not the joker in the pack, than certainly an ace up the sleeve. But at the same time, the authority of the Word in operation should theoretically at least mean that (within orthodoxy) for true evangelicals doctrine is revisable... which is to say, the theological system is revisable as the Bible is read more skilfully and more carefully.
In Sydney, Knox and Robinson were great models of the kind of true evangelical priority of the Bible. That is, they produced an ecclesiology which was in many respects a readjustment and reinterpretation of previous ones, because of their commitment to the authority of the Bible above all else. It left them exposed to the charge of an 'un-Anglican' ecclesiology. Today we do this with lay presidency: the argument is, sacerdoctal presidency isn't biblical. We don't care whether it is traditional or not.
Knox was quite an original thinker, and he was free to be, because he didn't hold to a rigid set of handed-down doctrines. That is why Moore sets a little at odds to our fellow evangelicals in other parts of the world: because we don't in general hold to a system of theology (like 5-point Calvinism) just because it might be logical or traditional: limited atonement isn't biblical (and you know, it just isn't!), so we ditch it. Our best current preachers and thinkers do this too: Peter Bolt and John Woodhouse are great examples of guys who have followed in the Knox-Robinson footsteps (if I may take their names in vain).
Noticeably, however, we are happy to play fast and loose with Anglican traditions, but not with evangelical ones. Perhaps this is because the former tend to be liturgical matters as opposed to doctrinal ones...
Posts
52 comments:
"(within orthodoxy)"
Isn't that just another way of saying "evangelical theological system"...?
Woodhouse isn't my favourite person any more. I went from being Sydney Anglican to being Reformed and I ma certain that his views on the sacraments are unbiblical.
As a Presbyterian minister told me a few months ago "There's so much water being thrown around in the book of Acts that it is hard to work out how Woodhouse can justify his stance on baptism."
Becoming Reformed has also led me to understand and appreciate Covenant Theology as something linked to, but not suplemented by, Biblical Theology.
Well, I don't personally agree with John's view on the sacraments (at least not when I last checked). But the principal's principle is at least what does the text say? He stands and falls by this. This, I feel, is not what happens in Covenant theology as I have read it...
This is not to say that systematic theology is not needed: it is just that it should be chastened.
Given the historical/theological usage of the term "Reformed", would you say that Sydney Anglicanism is "Reformed"?
Ah, great question.
Answer: yes. But of course, it depends what you mean. Anglicanism of the 39 Articles must be Reformed: which is to say, authority of the Word, a non-real presencey view of the sacraments, justification by faith alone, and predestination (at least single).
But, in a different context we may mean something more: a commitment to the Scholastic orthodoxy of the 17th century, a more Westminster Confession type of thing, and most especially I think, an (unsustainably) high view of the OT law's place in the Christian life. Oh, and a particular type of church govt, sans bishops. Plus, the regulative principle perhaps? Emphasis on the sovereignty of God to the exlusion of other doctrines?
Which evangelical traditions did you have in mind, Michael?
The question of how reformed Anglicanism is an interesting one. I know at least one Sydney candidate who has recently gone to the presy's over this very issue.
For myself, I have become deeply enamoured of Cranmer over the last couple of years - he really is a "forgotten hero" of the reformation.
I am very comfortable with bishops, stained glass windows and those cool little statues of the saints in St Andrews. In that respect I find presbyterianism unnecessarily restrictive. Still, I've gained great insight from reading the WCF (which Packer says was originally designed as a commentary on the Articles anyway).
And when I look at how schismatic Presbyterianism is, I am quite comfortable on the good ship Anglicanism, despite her myriad flaws.
Thanks for an excellent post, Michael. I think you're absolutely right about the relative and provisional nature of all theological systems.
In my opinion, though, what evangelicals really need is not less systematic theology, but more and better systematic theology. At least here in Australia, it's very striking that evangelical seminaries have often been strong on biblical scholarship but weak on serious, robust dogmatics. And, in turn, this can create a theological climate in which some traditions are uncritically accepted while others are uncritically condemned.
Biblical scholarship itself simply can't resolve the urgent problem of the relationship between tradition and the church's contemporary witness -- that is the task of dogmatics.
Ahh, I absolutely agree: more systematic theology, but it has to be better systematic theology.
And, I do think this is one of Moore's weaknesses.
I am responding to a particular criticism of Moore from certain Reformed circles, who argue that we are too Barthian (believe it or not!)... but I take that as a great compliment actually!
Hi Michael,
I wonder if the teaching of no real presence in the sacraments has gone to far in within the Sydney Dioscee? Especially in light of Pauls injunction not to take communion lightly for some have died for doing so....the only other NT example of people dying for taking something lightly was Ananias and Saphire who lied to the Holy Spirit.
While I appreciate the reasons for not taking a RC stance,I think in general though perhaps in Sydney we have gone too far the other way in not believing God is moving through the sacrament of communion.
As an outsider to Sydney, I can testify that I came to Moore College to study because I found the Knox-Robinson approach to theology exhilarating. I had gone from Arminianism to Banner of Truth style Reformed Theology, but in Knox and Robinson discovered a reformed and evangelical position that was still adventurous and open to discovering things in the Bible that challenged that tradition and called on it to be re-thought.
Interesting that neither Knox nor Robinson were inerrantists and that Knox did not subscribe to imputed righteousness. In both of these, I think the current generation in Sydney are more conservative that these diocesan fathers.
And, of course, you could fill a large book (let the reader understand!) with the positions Robinson entertained that had almost no precedent in the tradition, making him the most stimulating exegete Australia has yet produced.
Thanks Michael, good post. And good comments Ben and Michael, re systematics and biblical studies. Personally I went to Moore because of biblical studies, and came away having discovered systematic theology, for which I am ever grateful.
I went to SMBC and did the two year course there. Neil Chambers and David Cook were Moore College trained Presbyterians while Stephen Renn was a Westminster Seminary trained Baptist who taught us Covenant Theology. In retrospect it was probably more "Reformed" than Moore College as a result and so that's probably where I'm coming from. However I did spend many years at St Paul's Carlingford and was on MTS there for awhile so I'm fairly inculcated into Sydney Anglicanism as a result.
I suppose becoming a Presbyterian (I live in Newcastle now, so there is very little point in being Anglican any more) was a strange process. I had thought of the Pressies as being the "poor cousins" of Sydney Anglicans - after all Moore College was the training place for Pressies during the 1970s and 1980s when the Presbyterian church was going through massive changes.
The first thing that struck me was the well-thought out style of church government. The more I read the bible the more I realised that Eldership was a rather important thing to consider. While the nitty-gritty of the Presbyterian system is not what the Bible is talking about, the fact that a church should have elders who are in charge of the spiritual well-being seemed far more biblical and far more practical than the "top down" approach of having Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Moreover, the interdependence of churches means that there are external checks and balances - unlike the Baptist system. Certainly in the Presbyterian system a church has far more freedom to choose a pastor (as opposed to, say, the recent events surrounding Keith Mascord). While being in a Sydney Anglican church, church governance was something you just ignored and let the minister deal with. If the system was better, maybe there would be no Green Square/Mascord or Pymble/Gilmour events.
The next thing that struck me was the well-thought out approach to the sacraments. At St Paul's we used to have a Wednesday Evening church service. The idea was that the church would celebrate communion each week by having a meal before church started. Sounds great except that it essentially turned into "Pizza and Pepsi" before church - there was no symbolism or meaning attributed to it at all. Although I'm no fan of "liturgy", I have being convinced that the Bible does support a regular, meaningful "meal" around bread and wine (rather than coke and saos). This is because of the influence of Covenant theology and the link between the Passover meal of the OT and the Lord's Supper in the new - both being regular ceremonies that the people of God celebrate together to remember the Lord's deliverance. Baptism, as well, is well thought out. Covenant Theology shows the clear biblical link between OT Circumcision and NT Baptism - both being "one-off" external ceremonies that the people of God go through. As OT children were circumcised, so can the children of NT believers be baptised. In other words, baptism is a sign of the people of God. (And, of course, baptism is not essential for salvation in the same way that cricumcision was not a guarantee of salvation - Korah was circumcised, I'm sure)
I'm certain that some - if not many - covenant theologians have got in wrong in some areas so it would be good if you could tell us some of these Michael. However, given the Woodhouse approach to the sacraments I would say that many Moore College Biblical theologians are guilty of misreading and misunderstanding the bible as well.
One last thing - the regulative principle. I used to loath it but now I love it. It breaks down public worship into that which can be found in scripture and assumes that God has revealed all that is necessary in scrpiture for us to include in public worship. Those elements are: Public reading of scripture; a public discussion about scripture (eg a sermon); the singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs; public prayers; and a collection of money for the gospel (The last one I think is something that can be dispensed with in the age of internet banking since it is the money given for the gospel that is important, not the time and place of its giving).
Any thoughts? I've been rambling...
Thanks for an incisive post Michael. These simple words from John Stott I think say it best:
The hallmark of Evangelicals is not so much an impeccable set of words as a submissive spirit, namely their a priori resolve to believe and obey whatever Scripture may be shown to teach. They are committed to Scripture in advance, whatever it may later be shown to say. They claim no liberty to lay down their own
terms for belief and behaviour. They see this humble and obedient stance as an essential implication of Christ’s lordship over them.
(Essentials, p. 104)
To be an evangelical doesn't mean submission to a theological system but rather submission to the Lordship of Christ. This is what frees the Scriptures to be for us the kind of authority that they truly are.
Perhaps it is a deep recognition of this fact that made Knox and Robinson such inspiring Christian leaders?
Neil, South Sydney did not get to choose their minister because they are a "provisional parish". This essentially means that they can't afford to run the church on their own without assistance from the diocese, and hence the diocese gets to choose their minister.
What happens in the presy system when a church can't afford to pay its way?
Rory:
I would LOVE to have evidence about Knox and Robinson and inerrancy. Can you point me in the right direction?
Neil: I didn't want to pick on covenant theology too much. I am happy to say that the wed night coke and biscuits fellowship tea version of communion is farcical. For me, the problem with CT is that you take OT categories about the people of God and look far too closely for parallels in the NT, beyond scriptural warrant. Hence, sabbatarianism, for example!
The regulative principle ignores tradition which is an over-reaction...
Richard Hooker has a fine critique of it!
Hi Craig - I was probably speaking in ignorance about Green Square.
In the Presbyterian system if a church is unable to financially support a minister then it has two options - a) remain without a minister and instead pay preachers and retired ministers to come along and lead services, or b) Go to the ministry and mission department, where they are given a smallish amount of funding in return for a Home Missionary (an unordained minister). M&M select the minister and the church must accept the appointed minister if they wish to continue running as a "Home Missionary" parish.
If a church is in danger of closure (lack of money and/or people), then the local Presbytry will appoint "assessor" elders to the session who will then, along with the regular elders of the congregation, discuss what to do. If closing the church is the only option - and if the church refuses to close - then the presbytry can dismiss the session and make decisions about the church.
I spent time as an assessor elder earlier on this year when a church in our Presbytry shrunk to around 5 or so people. The church owned a lot of land and was financially able to pay a full minister's wage but the congregation had shrunk to the point where it was in danger of going under. I had to bail out of the session after I left to go to Griffith so I don't know what's going to happen with them.
In serious cases of heresy, financial mismanagement or law breaking, the presbytry can dismiss the session.
Think of Session as equivalent to Rector. Think of Presbytry as equivalent to Bishop.
Michael,
I'm definitely with you on sabbatarianism. It's the only commandment that is not explicitly commanded in the NT. Sure, Jesus and the book of Hebrews give us the meaning of the sabbath - but nowhere in the NT are Christians commanded to observe it. Surely as the influx of gentiles into the church grew, the issue of the sabbath would have come up for the apostles to deal with.
As it stands, I simply agree with Paul in Colossians 2.16-17:
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
The regulative principle ignores tradition which is an over-reaction...
I haven't read Hookesy so I can't comment on him, but I will say that there is much in traditional liturgy which conforms to the regulative principle. The prayers in the Prayer Book are an excellent case in point. Whenever I am leading a service I usually end with one of the closing sentences from the AAPB.
Having a public confession of sins is a wonderful part of a church service as well - and far too often gets missed in many low Anglican churches (as well as some contemporary Presbyterian ones).
Following a lectionary is, to me, a horses for courses thing. If the church would benefit from it then go for it - read the passages appointed and preach accordingly. Otherwise do it the standard Sydney Anglican way (the preachers determine which passage is chosen and preached upon).
The use of images, though, is problematic. Pictures do tell a thousand words but quite often the words a person hears may not be what the author intends. Stained glass windows could actually confuse rather than inform (having said that, we have stained glass in our Pressie church).
And as for copes, mitres, cassocks, processions, bells and smells - forget it.
Michael just to revert to some topics up-list for a moment (I've been offline):
I was very glad for Ben's post, which introduced a point which I thought had previously been missing: that there's just not enough systematic theology at Moore (or, there wasn't in my day). Related to this, I think it's signal that "biblical theology", however central it is to the approach in Sydney, is so difficult to clearly define. The approach in Sydney is itself a kind of tradition but it is not something that we are especially self-conscious about: "tradition" is usually spoken of as something other people have, and that we are prepared to jettison ...
Re my own preoccupations, it is nigh impossible to coherently relate Christian concerns to those of the wider world without active systematic thought, and I wonder how the Mission's 10%-of-Sydney goal could possibly be reached in the absence of such work. <small voice> I also wonder whether it should be reached if we don't engage better with the wider world </small voice>
Thanks also to matheson for the Stott quote: I'm not sure I actually agree with the Evangelical rhetoric on "whatever Scripture may be shown to teach" but to the extent that it is worthy, it's surely because of what follows from the lordship of Christ. Sometimes it's spoken of in free-floating terms, as if it were some kind of independent principle, and that's something I'm pretty sure I disagree with. I suspect some of the wider resistance to the position has a similar source?
Bruce Yabsley, well, well, well.
Good to see you're still around.
Neil, what liturgy does your presy church use? Can you give me an online link?
Hi Michael,
Robinson is in print on it. I think the essay is called "What shall we do with the Bible?". I'd be happy to track down further details. I know Knox also held that position (i.e., non-inerrantist) because of a tape in the Moore College library where he clearly states that position. Might be the sermon on 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, but I can't remember off hand.
I also understand T.C. Hammond was the same, but I've not seen that in print.
(BTW, those tapes in the MTC library are invaluable treasure, and many have gone missing and/or are being damaged. Use your influence to get them put onto MP3 ASAP. I've written letters, but to no avail.)
Well: this is all good news! I knew I was the true inheritor of the tradition!
I'd love to see the Robinson stuff if it is around, but not if it's a bother...
Well: this is all good news! I knew I was the true inheritor of the tradition!
I'd love to see the Robinson stuff if it is around, but not if it's a bother...
Hi,
Speaking as a baptist who was an Anglican (ducks missiles and continues) the Evo Anglican confusion over sacraments - particularly baptism - looks like part of a larger whole.
The commitment to traditional paedobaptism leads either to full-blown Covenant Theology which collapses the New Covenant into a species of the Old or it leads to a downgrading of baptism to an ineffective ceremony which expresses pious hopes for a new baby.
And as for episcopalianism.....
Well, I don't feel confused...
Certainly these tendencies are present, but there are more than two alternatives!
Hi again Michael. Full refernce is: Donald Robinson, ‘What shall we do with the Bible?’. Interchange 42 (1987): 5-17.
I have a copy here, but, as it happens, we are moving house and I packed it up two days ago!
Thanks Rory!
MJ.
Craig,
Presbyterian churches sometimes use The Book of Common Order which has been updated over the centuries like the Anglican Prayer Book. The difference is that the BCO is not binding while the BCP (theoretically) is. The BCO can be dispensed with if necessary but for many Anglicans the BCP is the Anglican church.
The format for many Presbyterian services is pretty much decided by the minister. My church (Charlestown Presbyterian) is quite "low" in its liturgy and would probably correspond to a modern day family service in a Sydney Anglican church.
Micahel,
You seem to take pride in denying certain things like Inerrancy and Limited Atonement. Without me trying to entrap you with a "gotcha" answer, I was wondering if you would agree with the following assertions:
* Those who deny inerrancy are essentially saying that the Bible has errors.
* Those who deny Limited Atonement are essentially denying predestination and/or the subsitutionary atonement.
No, I would certainly not agree with either of those statements.
I am sorry to appear to take 'pride' in denying these (alleged) doctrines: but I do think they are problematic teachings, yes.
How would you restate the doctrine of "inerrancy", Michael?
One Salient Oversight: please visit the following website for a short essay which points out how denying Limited Atonement isn't equal to denying predestination: http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=363
The article is called "The Logic of Limited Atonement"
Seem to remember Knox in "The Everlasting God" arguing that the doctrine of the trinity was dependent on inerrancy. Or did I remember that wrong (am a few miles from my bookshelf)? My memory is not what it used to be.
(At least I don't think it is, I can't really remember...)
Happy new year all!
You see, the problem is that when a person starts saying "I don't believe in inerrancy" or "I don't agree with Limited Atonement", the message that can often be given is of a reversal.
The so called doctrine of Limited Atonement is a case in point. It only exists because of the remonstrants. The Bible clearly teaches election/predestination on one hand, and the need for atonement for the sins of God's people on the other. The bible does not link the two (election and atonement) at all, which is why LA is problematic. Nevertheless, despite it being a human construct, it is theologically true in what it describes. So for me I can happily accept LA and call myself a "5 point Calvinist" since I believe that LA conveys a truth that can be derived from the Bible.
But while I'm happy to say I'm a five-pointer, I will also admit that LA is philosophically and biblically problematic. I think a greater problem is when a person says "I don't believe in LA" and leaves it at that, since it gives an incomplete picture of what that person believes.
Essentially my argument is that when a person says that they believe in LA, they are admitting what they believe (election and atonement), while those who deny it are being a bit mysterious and not being clear.
I know that may be a faulty argument so please publically shred it if necessary.
And, of course, the same applies to inerrancy.
I hold to all the points in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which, if you look closely, actually admits that there are some minor "errors" in the bible.
So if the Chicago Statement is what best describes inerrancy, then I believe in inerrancy.
OSA, I think your description of election/atonement is actually fairly close to mine: my problem is that the 'doctrine' of limited atonement/ definite atonement does exactly what you are trying to avoid, and explains and rationalises that which the Bible sees no need of explaining and rationalising. It is an abstraction.
Discuzion, certainly I wouldn't restate the doctrine of inerrancy since I don't think it is a word worth keeping. Now, don't get me wrong: I do not affirm 'errancy' (which is what inerrancy tries to bully you into admiting) I just don't think it is meaningful or biblical or helpful or necessary.
OSA, I would love you to quote that bit from the Chicago statement: I never noticed it. I thought it was happy to admit 'errors' if they were of the nature of exaggerations of numbers in the right literary context etc.
Article XI.
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of metrical, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
The Chicago Statement
Certainly LA came about because of the rise of Arminianism, which reacted against deterministic election and asserted that when "Christ died for the world" he didn't just die for Christians (which is a very strange road to go down).
Actually, I would really like to explore the notion of "The lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". By itself it seems to affirm the universality of the atonement, yet it becomes obvious in the rest of the NT that only Christians are saved, that Christians have had their sins atoned for, and that God elects those to become Christians. It seems to me that the statements "Christ died for the world" and "Christ died for the elect" are not mutually exclusive and are, in fact, both true somehow.
Perhaps there needs to be another acrostic. TULIP sounds nice and rosy to me though...
Oh... there's also this statement:
So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
(Back to limited Atonement...)
the 'doctrine' of limited atonement/ definite atonement does exactly what you are trying to avoid, and explains and rationalises that which the Bible sees no need of explaining and rationalising. It is an abstraction.
Would you say the same about the Creed of St Athanasius?
Maybe TULIP is not a doctrine, but a creed brought about by historical and theological issues at the time? I'm happy to affirm that.
Yes, the problem is, using author's intentions as a criteria: how are these intentions recoverable? Why chose this as the controlling grid? Why author's and not say editor's intentions?
And no, I wouldn't say the same about the Athanasian creed (so-called).
I suppose it's the argument of Accomodation isn't it? The idea being that the intentions are recoverable because God has made it possible. Slightly circular argument I guess.
What do you mean by "editor" BTW?
I also see that you logged on straight after Midnight. Happy New Year etc.
Yes, happy new year to you and everyone else.
I don't think that is what accomodation is...as far as I understand it, accomodation is the idea that God 'babytalks' to us - ie speaks to us in a way we can understand.
I'm not sure there is any point holding to "inerrancy" when you immediately have to provide a whole heap of qualifications. It's like saying "I believe the Bible is inerrant, except when there are errors."
well, I think the genre qualification is fair enough. If you are going to assert inerrancy you have to limit it to what the bible actually teaches and not the peripherals. But therein the problem: what does it teach? Inerrancy becomes such a loose term that it isn't worth having, I venture. Authority, trustworthiness yes. Inerrancy? Can't see the point meself.
... and a happy New Year to all.
Michael I think this is an excellent statement.
For the record (and moving from older to newer slogans), one of my reservations about saying one has an "a priori resolve to believe and obey whatever Scripture may be shown to teach" (mentioned up-list) is rather similar to this: it invites the question of what Scripture teaches; of what it is for an occasional letter, a gospel, or a narrative to "teach" something; and of what counts as Scripture anyway, since the canon is a matter of tradition, as Laurence pointed out (in this blog?) in another discussion some time ago.
On the other hand, saying that Scripture is authoritative and trustworthy, and that one's respect for it follows from acknowledging the lordship of Christ ... certainly that needs to be unpacked, but the basic point invites agreement in a way that the slogan does not.
one salient oversight wrote that the problem is that when a person starts saying "I don't believe in inerrancy" or "I don't agree with Limited Atonement", the message that can often be given is of a reversal, but for those of us with "Mere Christian" or "Simply Christian" tendencies, the message can instead be one of resistance to something perceived as additional. This is not part of my own tradition, that I know by experience how to relate to Scripture; it is not a mere repackaging of the Nicene Creed; why then am I being urged in strong terms to sign on?
Regarding
Bruce Yabsley, well, well, well.
Good to see you're still around.
Well (?well, well?) it's more a matter of being "back". Connecting to this blog means that I'm back at work, so from my point of view the pleasure is mixed: longer holidays would have been nice.
Hi Michael,
Back at the beginning of the discussion some mention was made of John Woodhouse's view of the sacraments. Perhaps I've just forgotten my Doctrine 1 lecture contents, but what are John's views on the sacraments, and how do they differ from your own understanding?
Well, I can't really reply in fairness because I haven't asked him or heard him for a while. I think he has written some Briefing articles on the sacraments, and certainly he has spoken on lay presidency in Synod.
At Moore in the early nineties it was commonplace slander to ascribe a limited view of the Spirit and a low view of the sacraments to John W. Despite this, they are not topics that I can remember him addressing directly. (Peter J, now the arch, was teaching Doctrine 1 in those days; I take it from roger gallagher's post that John has been doing this more recently.) John was however notorious for avoiding sermon illustrations as a matter of principle, and that's something I can confirm from extensive experience. I don't recall the principle being explained in detail, but I can safely say that I'd disagree with any such principle as a philosophical and not just a practical matter. I should note that I benefited greatly from John's preaching, although I know others (esp. on Mission) found it quite inaccessible, so as to practicalities my own view is mixed. I don't know if John's practice or view has changed since that time.
It was common hearsay knowledge (but how accurate?) that as rector of Christ Church St Ives he held Holy Communion rather infrequently. But without more context this does not help much, since (as I understand) there are traditions where infrequent communion is bound up with making a big deal of it when it is taken. In any case, a common thread of austerity ran through various of John's positions, and this was interpreted freely by people on the street (as it were).
I mention this ancient history for two reasons:
(1) There have been a goodly number of Sydney Anglicans at quite strong variance with John W on these issues, so I'm not sure a "Sydney Anglican" vs "Reformed" distinction is much of a key to understanding the phenomena here. In general, actually, while I agree that it makes sense to speak of Sydney Anglicans I don't think one can helpfully refer to a "Sydney Anglican position": one has to be more precise.
(2) Related to this, there was a distinct lack of open, principled disagreement among Moore College staff in my day, something remarked by many people, and always with disapproval. Comparison and criticism of views is inevitable, so it should be done openly, and with some suitable group of people setting an example of good conduct. The lack of this sort of leadership is surely implicated in many of our problems. An open slanging match on the sydneyanglican website some years ago (when I could still bear to read it) regarding ethnic congregations, which degenerated immediately to statements that (each of) the opposed positions was "not Biblical", springs to mind as an example. (The sensible part of a discussion is over once this sort of statement is made in public.) I speculate that people tell themselves that they avoid serving as champions for differing positions to avoid faction, but if so the practical consequence may be certain views being then (mis?)understood as some sort of official group position.
hmm. Well said. In my two years on the faculty under John W he many terms referred to the diversity of opinion aong the faculty which he said we should not see as a flaw. With the introduction of American and Irish lecturers of differing denominational background, diversity (on say, infant baptism) became more commonplace and more expected. However, I think your suggestion of principled and open disagreement being modelled is really very exciting.
I have to say, some students find the notion of any disagreement very hard to cope with...some personalities find conflict very tough.
I think just before your time, there were debates held in public between members of the faculty on women's ordination (when Graham Cole was there.) Perhaps that kind of thing could be reintroduced.
If it could, it would be a very good thing.
I caught the end of Graham Cole's period on staff, when he was to some extent winding down: I only had the privilege of learning from him in one course. The women's ordination debate you speak of was between Graham and Rob Forsyth (then of course rector at St Barnabas'), and was indeed just before my time, although I do have the (very poorly reproduced) tapes somewhere. My memory is that it was held under Barney's rather than College auspices; I can't speak to whether there were other debates in this period. But in its tone and content it seemed to come from another era to the one I inhabited, to the point that I sometimes wondered who (or what) had died ...
Your observation, that diversity of opinion during your stint on faculty was tied to lecturers of differing background, actually indicates some continuity. In my day, for a distinctive view strongly but reasonably held you would go to Graham or Barry Webb, whose denominational backgrounds were different, or to Bill Dumbrell, who was set apart both by age and by very distinctive expertise. (Sadly for us, but happily for others, Bill was also preparing to move on at that time.) Glenn Davies, then as now, was in a category of his own. People sometimes mention Michael Hill, but he would be better described as part of the natural variation within the local mainstream. (Just because women's ordination is a minority cause in Sydney, it does not make you an example of diversity if you support it.)
I was actually avoiding using the term "modelling [of disagreement]" although that indeed is what we called it. Your statement that some students find the notion of any disagreement very hard to cope with is, I suspect, the real reason that such modelling has not been taking place. (Cf. avoiding faction, which is what I think people tell themselves they're doing.) There was a kind of "not in front of the children" attitude about such disagreements, which I thought to some extent forgiveable in first year, but was disappointed to see prevailed into second and third. I can't speak to fourth year, but it also characterised discussion at Schools of Theology when I was still in Sydney: the period you were a student at College, rather than on staff.
If I had to make a single criticism of the College staff in my time, this would be it, and I think it's a pretty serious criticism to make, and implicated in other weaknesses of the College and Diocese. If (may it please God) this could be changed, then who knows ...
Well, I think there is a right motivation in place, actually.
Re the Cole/Forsyth debate, there WAS also a Cole/Davies debate at college itself.
I think it is very hard humanly to have disagreements about things that we feel are as important as this, and akso remain in connection. It is fine to disagree with baptists over baptism because we have seperate organisations and we can splash water how we wish, and frankly, who cares. But if we are to work in the same organisation, it takes courage and testicular fortitude to make it work. Something to aspire to, indeed.
Yes I agree. In another context I've noted that the idea that scientific disputes are eirenic (that "there are no shooting wars over scientific principles", in Paul Davies' words, meant in self-flattering contrast with religious wars) is not true to my experience. For example, my previous experimental collaboration had a series of protracted internal conflicts which were both fundamental and (on occasion) bitter. We suffer from the same temptation to identify noncombatant status with not caring about issues, and concern for truth with partisan militancy. And anyone who thinks that we don't decline from our own ideals for worldly reasons has simply not been involved in the community, or not keeping their eyes open.
For the College and the church I think it's further complicated by the overlapping institutions and traditions involved, most importantly the evangelical tradition and movement which cuts across denominational boundaries; and of course the College as an academic and social institution in its own right is subject to additional interests and pressures, which are legitimate as far as they go.
If I speak warmly about the importance of modelling disagreement it's because (amongst other reasons) I think it's related to the anxiety about boundaries and membership that I've mentioned in another thread. Leadership by example in this matter would be of great benefit to the church both spiritually and academically.
As to the debates: I was ignorant of the debate between Graham and Glenn, which must have been a delight on several levels. I don't suppose there's a tape or a transcript of it somewhere?
Hmm. Don't know. The Moore College library (with online catalogue) would be the place to look. Cole has the ability to communicate brilliantly and to make big ideas digestible, and was a much loved teacher at Moore. I am sorry I missed him. However, whenever I have heard his arguments about this I am reminded that I really do believe the other side!
At about the same time, there was a hideous debate held in Parramatta with Kevin Giles and David Peterson. According to reports, Giles was rude to the point of damaging his own cause.
I wonder too what cultural factors ought to be taken into account? Aussies are known for their brashness (as I discover!)... so, robust disagreement and partisanship may just be a cultural feature more than anythig else..
Again drawing on my experience of international scientific collaboration, with many (rather contrasting) cultures involved, I'd draw a distinction between robust disagreement and partisanship.
What counts as an acceptable way of expressing disagreement is plainly a culturally relative matter. (This is not to say that a culture can't have a besetting sin or weakness in this matter: of course it can.) It can take a lot of time and experience to work out what others do and don't mean by the way they say things: I have in mind here the idiom "I didn't mean anything by it", for protesting that no affront was meant by some stance, or form of words. In another thread you pointed out that English politeness can serve as a mask or even a vehicle for contempt; conversely I've sometimes been forced to accept that colleagues' apparently evasive manner hasn't reflected an unwillingness to grapple with an issue. And from time to time I've seen collaborators from less brash cultures realise that, contrary to what they'd thought on the basis of my direct manner in meetings, I am basically a polite person. Whether I make it unnecessarily hard for some people to realise that, is of course a question for me to consider.
But I don't think one can make the same kind of cultural defence for partisan behaviour. Legal rhetoric in the Anglo-Saxon world is different from that in France, because the system is adversarial rather than inquisitorial, and advocates have their part to play within a well-defined system: fine. But we are talking about behaviour in teaching and pastoral offices, and so this kind of analogy will not run.
Post a Comment