Michael, thanks for your succinct summary and review. Can I ask a couple of questions that I'd love your thoughts on?
1 - What's distinct about what TC is saying about church? Is it the dual fidelity of gospel and community?
2 - A common criticism of more "community minded" groups is that they are more susceptible to either diluting the gospel or going down the freaky-isolationist-end-up-with-guns-in-a-siege-cult line. Is this actually historically true and, if so, why? Is the alternative a church that "holds faithfully to the gospel" with little opportunity to preach it and limited interaction with the community that needs it?
3 - Is TC actually challenging my unconscious middle-class expectations and restrictions of the life of a christian in the church more than anything else?
4 - As I read TC I'm continually struck by how biblically-drenched their thinking is, yet I find myself surprised that I haven't devoted more thought and time to the issues they discuss. It just seems so practical and perhaps, therefore, unworthy of a Systematic Theology. I've never seen a Systematic Theology with a section on "One Another" yet it's a strong theme in the NT. No question here. Discuss?
(By the way, would you believe the word verification I had to enter to publish this comment was: "fixte". There's something in that for all of us)
Oh, well: 1 - I think their emphasis on community is different from the Sydney one - and they actually want to put it into practice. We have been shaped a little by trying really hard not to look Anglo-Catholic or denominationalist. They don't have that pressure. The result is a bit different.
2 - TC are aware of this problem. But early Xnty would look more like a cult than the church of england! They know that the small church can be susceptible to the pathological personality.
3 - well, yes. I think it is taking YOUR theology seriously.
Well, yes, they certainly do. They do have an eldership. They aren't flat egalitarians like some house church folks have been in the past.
But, the point that JH is making is that we do already have the accountability structures to protect us against the potential problems of a small intense church structure.
Nothing could be more earthly – or more heavenly. Great line. From your review, sounds like there is good stuff in the book. Did you know there is going to be a TC conference in Sydney soon? (i.e. next Tuesday) I can't make it, but details here.
Knowing very little more than what you've written about TC, my biggest problem is with the name: are they saying that other churches are incomplete, that church is the totality of life, or something else? Few of the connotations seem good.
I also found it a little amusing that your piece was billed (front page of the print version!) as a theological critique, when the only criticism you seem to make is that they could have been more clear at one point. But the media need their dramatic beat-ups.
I'm guessing SC editors were also responsible for the ecclesiastical (sacramental?) innovation of pouring over God’s word together. Now that's how to make baptism truly biblical! Or was this one part of Fix that I never heard about it? ;-)
"The pedant is he who finds it impossible to read criticism of himself, without immediately reaching for his pen and replying to the effect that the accusation is a gross insult to his person. He is, in effect, a man unable to laugh at himself." - Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id.
11 comments:
Michael, thanks for your succinct summary and review. Can I ask a couple of questions that I'd love your thoughts on?
1 - What's distinct about what TC is saying about church? Is it the dual fidelity of gospel and community?
2 - A common criticism of more "community minded" groups is that they are more susceptible to either diluting the gospel or going down the freaky-isolationist-end-up-with-guns-in-a-siege-cult line. Is this actually historically true and, if so, why? Is the alternative a church that "holds faithfully to the gospel" with little opportunity to preach it and limited interaction with the community that needs it?
3 - Is TC actually challenging my unconscious middle-class expectations and restrictions of the life of a christian in the church more than anything else?
4 - As I read TC I'm continually struck by how biblically-drenched their thinking is, yet I find myself surprised that I haven't devoted more thought and time to the issues they discuss. It just seems so practical and perhaps, therefore, unworthy of a Systematic Theology. I've never seen a Systematic Theology with a section on "One Another" yet it's a strong theme in the NT. No question here. Discuss?
(By the way, would you believe the word verification I had to enter to publish this comment was: "fixte". There's something in that for all of us)
Oh, well:
1 - I think their emphasis on community is different from the Sydney one - and they actually want to put it into practice. We have been shaped a little by trying really hard not to look Anglo-Catholic or denominationalist. They don't have that pressure. The result is a bit different.
2 - TC are aware of this problem. But early Xnty would look more like a cult than the church of england! They know that the small church can be susceptible to the pathological personality.
3 - well, yes. I think it is taking YOUR theology seriously.
4 - great question!
[Jeremy Halcrow said:]
On the issue of community=cult.
Been doing a bit of thinking about this - with reference to a number of specific examples of churches gone feral.
The issue is ensuring accountability structures outside the leadership that the punters can appeal to.
In this regard a TC model 'inside' our existing Anglican parish structure may have some real strengths.
Hey, we got BISHOPS!
(Mum said)
I bet they have leaders of some sort!
Well, yes, they certainly do. They do have an eldership. They aren't flat egalitarians like some house church folks have been in the past.
But, the point that JH is making is that we do already have the accountability structures to protect us against the potential problems of a small intense church structure.
[JH said:]
The Fellowship/Tinker Tailor is one example that is well documented on the public record.
Anglicans (in Syd & Melb) were far more successful at purging them than the Presbyterians.
I can think of some other examples I'd rather not put on the public record.
Nothing could be more earthly – or more heavenly.
Great line.
From your review, sounds like there is good stuff in the book. Did you know there is going to be a TC conference in Sydney soon? (i.e. next Tuesday) I can't make it, but details here.
Knowing very little more than what you've written about TC, my biggest problem is with the name: are they saying that other churches are incomplete, that church is the totality of life, or something else? Few of the connotations seem good.
I also found it a little amusing that your piece was billed (front page of the print version!) as a theological critique, when the only criticism you seem to make is that they could have been more clear at one point. But the media need their dramatic beat-ups.
I'm guessing SC editors were also responsible for the ecclesiastical (sacramental?) innovation of pouring over God’s word together. Now that's how to make baptism truly biblical! Or was this one part of Fix that I never heard about it? ;-)
Pedantry is a sickness, Byron...
I think you are being a bit unfair: I did point out that they had no eschatology of the church, didn't I?
That's "pædantry", to be precise.
"The pedant is he who finds it impossible to read criticism of himself, without immediately reaching for his pen and replying to the effect that the accusation is a gross insult to his person. He is, in effect, a man unable to laugh at himself." - Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id.
Post a Comment