Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Women bishops - Judgment Day


Many congratulations to HM The Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh on their 65th wedding anniversary. The Coalition limps on from one incompetence to another, the EU does the same, and Israel is at war in/with Gaza. But the story of the day will be women bishops and the Church of England.

It has been 20 years since the Established Church ordained women as priests, since which time some 5000 have responded to the call of God on their lives. Throughout the Worldwide Anglican Communion, provincial autonomy has permitted women to be consecrated bishops in accordance with cultural shifts in gender perspective. This has not merely been tolerated, but actively promoted.

For some, this development represents reformist progress; for others, it drives a wedge between Orthodox/Roman Christianity and the Anglican variety. Gender 'equality' is seen to trump church unity, and Anglican-Roman Catholic relations are impeded as a result. There are also those Roman Catholics who support women bishops in the hope that the Church of England disintegrates, perceiving it to be a means by which England might return to the 'Catholic fold' through the chaplaincy of the Ordinariate. They can dream on.

His Grace wrote last week about Anglican fudge. While the ecclesial tide undoubtedly ebbs toward women bishops, it must be remembered that many disagree on sincere theological and historic grounds of catholicity: women are equal, but their roles in the church are different. Neither is diminished in this discrimination, any more than they are in the manifestly different roles accorded by nature in the act of procreation.

There is a widespread feeling that the provision made for this group in the church's legislation is inadequate: the exhortation to 'respect' falls short of any kind of assurance, and will lead to future dissent and division in the Church. And yet the legislation continues to discriminate against women, since some will not have quite the authority that their male counterparts possess.

Neither side is content: both are irked by the compromise. This would appear to be quite genuinely and consistently Anglican. 

127 Comments:

Blogger scottspeig said...

Yet no mention of the political side threatening to remove the church's special priviledges if it doesn't bow to cultural pressure!

If I were a traditionalist having a vote, Parliament's stance would have been counter-productive for it would have entrenched my belief that the church was sliding towards cultural living.

Considering they've had 12 years to persuade the Traditionalists of the argument, it seems incumbent on the reformers to either leave and create a reformation of reformers, or to swallow the bitter pill of defeat to allow Christian Unity to flourish.

20 November 2012 at 10:05  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

There have been nasty threats from parliamentarians, notably Tony Baldry. Rowan Williams seems affably vague about assurances he gave to those of us who can't accept this novelty as being in accordance with catholic doctrine as the C of E says she has received it. Justin Wilby is revising church teaching to keep abreast of the secularists. It's all a poor show really for Christian charity.

No priest believing in the doctrine of St Vincent of Lerins can swear an oath of canonical obedience to a female prelate. As it stands they want us to trample on our consciences. What for? Not believing in the new doctrines.

We were promised and assured a "reception" of female ordination. Out the window!

We were assured that there were "two integrities" equally respected. Not now!

We are to lose our PEVs and get someone who "respects" our beliefs and traditions. That could be a man like John Shelby Spong!

20 November 2012 at 10:27  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 November 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Our beloved ex-vicar Chris Bryant:

If the legislation leans too far towards the traditionalist that won’t please the Commons and the legislation would have trouble

Frank Field joins him by promising to table a motion removing the CofE's exemption from equality laws should it fail to pass.

Leaving aside points about whether such an act will be extended to the Muslim Council - I'm sure the Inspector and others will deal with that side of things as... vigorously as they usually do - I'll just say that, as someone who believes that women are called into all kinds of ministries by God as evidenced throughout Scripture, I hope the Synod takes this charge very very seriously and allows it to influence its decision making with the proper weight it deserves (2 Corinthians 6:14).

20 November 2012 at 11:20  
Blogger Michele said...

I really don't see what the problem is - your Christian church has had women bishops in the past. In a basilica in Rome, under the high arch is a mosaic depicting among others one identified as Theodora Episcopa We all know that the masculine for 'Bishop' is Episcopus, so this is a depiction of Bishop Theodora - female. [The Archaeological Evidence of the Ministry of Women in the Early Church - Dorothy Irvine 1980]

That someone with similar views of those expressed above tried to obliterate the final 'a', the feminine ending, does not negate the evidence.

If you do actually examine the evidence left in places like the catacombs there is ample evidence that women played leading roles in the early church. Selective culling of the sacred canon also helped to sideline the female membership of the church.

The many attempts of later members of the church to remove all traces of those early female church leaders does nothing to advance your cause, merely highlights that there have been male supremists in the church since it became a Political state religion. Which placed men firmly in the civic sphere [polis], and women were banished as second class humans into the domestic sphere [Oikus]- an outcome of Greco/Roman philosophical thought rather than the teachings of Jesus.

So perhaps the real traditionalists are those that support female bishops.

Doesn't bother me, I'm a pagan and not really interested in your theology, but surely rational people cannot ignore the physical evidence.

20 November 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

If you are not interested why are you here?

20 November 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Michele:

Oh now you've done it. We'll be onto Pope Joan before you know it.

The feminine usage of titles for wives is well documented and practiced, and to my mind a more convincing explanation in the absence of other documentary evidence. However, there are two things to note. The first is that there certainly was a later backlash in both Eastern and Western Christianity against women in prominent roles in the Church; the difficulty is that they are just as likely to have responded to a perceived "proper" title of Bishop as they were to a real one. As the answer to Dan Brown goes, you might show that Leonardo believed some pretty crazy things, but that doesn't make them true in the first place.

The second thing, though, overlooked by the eagerness to claim the title of bishop, is that women have always featured centrally in the mission and work of the Church. Not, it must be said, very often in the high theology - but what does one expect of the male ivory towers. Plus ca change eh?

No, one has but to look at pastoral writings, records of daily life - you know, the dull stuff - to find women active in all aspects of Christianity on the ground, all the way from the days of the Early Church right up to the present day. I'd certainly see that as putting a spanner in the works of anyone who thinks women should have no role at all, but on the other hand, it doesn't do much for the line that they never have due to patriarchy either.

What sort of pagan out of interest?

20 November 2012 at 11:50  
Blogger non mouse said...

One rule to force them all.
One law to bind them.

Heil whatever (except God, individual conscience, the tradition that has developed to suit the majority in a homeland, or inventive/creative thinking).





20 November 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace
The great issue here is no t whether the ordination of female bishops drives a greater wedge between ‘Orthodox Roman/Christianity and the Anglican variety’.

The great issue here is whether the ordination of female bishops impels more men to desert the Church of England. Female priests and bishops tend not to use the nouns that men’s ears are responsive to: ‘warrior’, ‘king’, ‘master’, ‘soldier’.

I take it that the Church of England, should it vote for this measure, expects the old biddies that will remain to carry out the heavy maintenance tasks that every church building and its grounds requires? Indeed at my own local church the more men that desert it the greater the number of tasks that fall on the few remaining men who are increasingly tempted to attend another denomination of the ‘Anglican variety’.

One of the reasons I attend church is to take off the legal fiction of equality in our secular democracy. I find that when I bow and kneel I grow stronger and taller as one of the organs (not members) of the church body: complementarity.

The world outside the church is dying and decaying: it has exchanged complementarity for equality. Our church will soon die as it invites that poison to seep through the keyhole in the church door: we will be no different to the faceless monotonous regularity of the world. We will no longer produce the great saints of yesteryear.

20 November 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

If this measure passes, the CoE will cease to exist within 20 years. This legislation will:

1. Guarantee the ascendancy of religious liberalism in the church hierarchy.

2. Force the emergence of a significant alternate Anglican presence outside the CoE.

3. Trigger the outflow of conservatives from the CoE into that significant alternate Anglican presence.

In short, the CoE would place itself on an inevitable road to the same destination as TEC, but without all that dead men's money to sustain it. The resulting liberalism of the CoE will cause it to break with the bulk of the Communion it purports to lead. The alternate Anglican presence will receive that recognition in its place. It will very soon become a very comfortable liberal church - until it goes bankrupt for lack of interest.

The CoE sits poised with a loaded shotgun shoved in its mouth. It has only to pull the trigger ... all the while saying "This gun isn't loaded. Look, I will show you!"

carl

20 November 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Michele

Doesn't bother me, I'm a pagan and not really interested in your theology

Heh. Significant portions of Anglicanism don't actually do theology anymore. They would be quite happy to co-exist with paganism as an equally valid religious tradition. In fact, they do already. It's not hard to find liturgies of the goddess complete with raisin cakes. TEC even had a priest who was a Druid.

There isn't really a religion out there that liberal Anglicanism would reject. Well, other than orthodox Christianity, of course. The old reactionaries with their Cross, and their concepts of sin and redemption - they won't be tolerated.

carl

20 November 2012 at 12:28  
Blogger Flossie said...

What really infuriates me is the misrepresentation and outright lying of the innovators to discredit the traditionalists. Just look at the letter written to the Independent by a huge number of clergy, who compare opposition to women bishops as akin to that of antisemitism and slavery, and the belief that 'women are inferior to men'.

This is absolute rubbish. I don't know anyone in the traditionalist camp who thinks this. In fact there was a female majority in Forward in Faith's membership.

These lies and smears, together with the apparent lack of theological grounding, make these people unfit to minister to the people of God, in my opinion. I don't know what they teach them in theological colleges these days. And these people, should they win, will be the ones in charge. God help us!

20 November 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger Flossie said...

Forgot the link for the Indy article: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/open-letter-the-biblical-case-for-women-bishops-8327446.html

David Ould has done a good fisking on it.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29733

20 November 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Carl:

Heartened is not the right word to describe what I've felt reading about the genuine exodus from TEC, not least because its leadership have proved, true to predictions, to be utterly illiberal to any who do not obey their new gospel. It's not a good day when Christian leaders walk the path into error and sin and expect the rest to follow. But it is right and proper to cease fellowship with those who no longer honour God's Word with obedience.

I noted that many have chosen to remain Anglican, in fellowship with Canterbury. More rides on the Throne of St. Augustine than we sometimes think in the UK.

The only thing I'd say in disagreement with your post is that I'm not sure the two are absolutely comparable. There is, I think, support within Scripture to talk about women's ministry (even if Paul's letters to Timothy are clear on positions of authority), and there is also an argument to be made regarding the extent to which ecclesial practice is necessary doctrine. The issue of women ministers does not involve a direct redefinition of sin.

However, I think you're bang on the money by identifying the issue as being about liberalism. I know Christians whose defence of women ministers is not fought out of defiance of Scripture, and whose faith is very much rooted in orthodoxy. Between us, we strive not to make the issue a stumbling block for one another - but we can do this, precisely because we know that we come from similar points, and are not using the argument to advance a different gospel. Because I know they also submit to God's authority, there is every reason to hope that He will work in all of us (myself included) to resolve the issue in unity. I also know Christians whose defence of women ministers is entirely sourced from their liberal views, derived from a desire to conform to the world, and open in rejection, defiance, and not unfrequently, scorn for Scripture. There, I think, unity will be a long time coming, and only then through the intercession of the Holy Spirit.

20 November 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Flossie:

" In fact there was a female majority in Forward in Faith's membership."

This would accord with my, admittedly anecdotal, experience. Most of the strongest opponents to the measure that I've encountered have been women.

20 November 2012 at 12:44  
Blogger graham wood said...

Carl I'm puzzled by your 3 point assumptions above that female bishops will initiate a tidal wave of liberalism into the C of E.
How will the measure if passed alter the status quo significantly, for the C of E is already awash with liberal theology anyway.
Why also do you assume that the measure is designed to produce what you refer to as "egalitarianism". Why not attribute the majority of supporters of female ministry with better and principled, biblical reasons for their view?

Behind Pauls' thinking about ministry as a whole lies his basic premise that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal.3:28).
As N T Wright points out that is not to say that there are not real gender differences, gifts and ministries for both, but the old distinctions of the separation of women in the OT and taught in the Torah, no longer apply to believers of both genders who are "in Christ".
How then do you interpret Gal.3:28 as practically applied to the issue of women in ministry?

20 November 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger Julian Mann said...

What urgently needs to be grasped in this debate is that consecrating women bishops would not be a progressive move. It would be thoroughly regressive, for disobedience to God's voice in the Scriptures always holds the Church back. The God of the Bible will not bless this unbiblical innovation, any more than he has blessed the ordination of women to the presbyterate, contrary to Scripture. The Church of England is not moving forward by undermining the God-given complementarity of the sexes.

The other aspect of this debate that needs addressing is the disgraceful distortion of Galatians 3v28. That statement by the Apostle Paul in the context of his refutation of the circumcision party in the Galatian churches is about the equal basis of salvation, namely faith in Jesus Christ. It is not about church order. The church has to discriminate in relation to the people it appoints as leaders. It has to reject some candidates on various grounds and accept others. You may as well misuse that text to disband Church of England ordination selection panels.

Growing conservative evangelical churches fully uphold Galatians 3v18 by proclaiming the biblical gospel to all without discrimination - they are the progressive churches that are moving forward.

20 November 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

One of Ernst's favourite tweets so far on #Synod..

Sharon Copestake ‏@scopestake

If we all pray 'thy will be done' then after today we can be assured of God's own timing, not our own agendas. #synod #womenbishops .

If Ernst prays, prior to walking out of John Lewis with goods under his arm he has no intention of paying for, "God, if I get out of here Scot Free, let it be your will" can Ernst be assured of God's own timing and blessing in this action if not caught, not Him colluding to me erroneous agenda of stockpiling unpaid Christmas prezzies for free??.

Blofeld

20 November 2012 at 13:03  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

or

"Rachel Beck ‏@Rachelb105

Hannah Page CEYC - Why am I meeting Christ in people who are not Christians more often than I am in Christians? #synod "

Perhaps because you and Hannah Page confuse Christ with your own vain imaginations of Who He is and that He really meant what He said and said what He meant and taught His Apostles likewise? They are called His Commandments for a reason and we are to obey Him. What you are looking for is yourself in others, not Him!

Blofeld

20 November 2012 at 13:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Ernst you naughty soul. Let us hope you manage to half-inch a new pair of nashers!

Much chortling.

20 November 2012 at 13:11  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

AIB

Enjoying your comment and meant to say so but stumbled across a few miscreants on #synod and could not resist the urge to 'crop' their derriere's first.
It's too depressing to scroll through the rest of their nonsense anymore (Bless His Grace for having the patience and fortitude for the task!). 'They did and said what seemed right in their eyes' just about sums it all up.

Cheerio, old boy.

Ernst

20 November 2012 at 13:17  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Ernst:

Quite right. Don't give up hope yet. I was once a fullblooded liberal myself, relativistic, disregarding of Scripture, and likewise keen to find "my own personal Jesus" in anyone but the bigots I perceived around me.

Needless to say, my "Jesus" did not survive the day when I decided to re-read the Bible, rather than take what I half-remembered of it.

20 November 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Graham Wood

This measure will de facto proscribe the existence of complimentary theology from the CoE. Those people will have to go somewhere. They aren't just going to stay around and say "It's a fair cop. We lost, so we'll just have to make the best of it." This is a matter of conscience. Some of those people will be clergy. They will start setting up an alternate Anglicanism to receive the unchurched refugees from the CoE. And it will grow.

In the meantime, the CoE will be busy setting up quotas for accessions of new Women Bishops. And the pool of female candidates will be decidedly to the Left of the theological spectrum. It is a well-established demographic fact the women clergy tend to be more heterodox than their male counterparts. This is logical since the more orthodox the woman, the more likely she is to remove herself from the pool.

So you have a couple of dynamics put into place. The inevitable outflow of conservatives to an orthodox refuge combined with the inevitable pull of the leadership to the radical Left - and I do mean radical. It won't be two years before this CoP is 1) subverted without legal redress and 2) placed on the agenda for modification. And right on the heels of this measure will come calls to legitimize homosexuality. This isn't going to stop.

So you will have a pull of orthodoxy outward combined with a complimentary push of heterodoxy outward. One by one by one, the conservatives are going to start leaving. They will each eventually find they have no choice. And each individual loss will make the CoE that much more susceptible to the advent of full-throated liberalism. It's coming. When you see Fulcrum in the dock, then you will know that the time of judgment has arrived.

I understand that believers can disagree about WO. (As an aside, you would do better to not quote N T Wright to me. I consider him a liberal and no part a conservative.) But that isn't the issue with today's vote. This isn't about the applicability of Galatians 3 to WO. Today will determine if orthodoxy still has any place in the CoE.

carl

20 November 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Flossie

‘What really infuriates me is the misrepresentation and outright lying of the innovators to discredit the traditionalists. Just look at the letter written to the Independent by a huge number of clergy, who compare opposition to women bishops as akin to that of antisemitism and slavery, and the belief that 'women are inferior to men'.’

The reason why they smear their opponents is because they view equality as a quantity.

Love, hardly knows anything about quantity.

20 November 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

AIB

Let us hope you manage to half-inch a new pair of nashers!

So ... ummm ... is this English or some dialect of British? I think I have figured out that 'nasher' is supposed to be a modification of 'gnash' - as in 'gnasher.' Dentures? But 'half-inch' as a verb? My British-to-English translation device threw a BSOD on that data input.

carl

20 November 2012 at 13:49  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Carl:

Nick, purloin - you know, the things that tea leaves do. :)

20 November 2012 at 13:55  
Blogger Tommy said...

Heres a question, what does the word of God say? Not this man or that women, what does the word say?

20 November 2012 at 14:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

AIB

Nick, purloin - you know, the things that tea leaves do

So, in Britain, a cop can nick someone for nicking something, and then place him in the nick. And all of this has something to do with tea at 4:00 pm?

No wonder you people like Cricket.

carl

20 November 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

"There are also those Roman Catholics who support women bishops in the hope that the Church of England disintegrates, perceiving it to be a means by which England might return to the 'Catholic fold' through the chaplaincy of the Ordinariate. They can dream on."

Ummm ... interesting comment reflecting a somewhat suspicious and, might one suggest, somewhat uncharitable view of Catholics. Do you think the Jesuits may be scheming away behind the scenes as in the days of yore?

"Neither side is content: both are irked by the compromise. This would appear to be quite genuinely and consistently Anglican."

Indeed. It began with the unnatural compromise between Calvinism and Anglo-Catholicism - a political, not primarily a theological decision, designed to hold the realm of England together.

The middle-way. A strength or a weakness? History is telling us.

20 November 2012 at 14:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

I don't Adam and Eve it! Carl’s getting his Alan Whickers in a state over the English language again.

I can picture his Boat Race now. He should get on the Dog and Bone and ask a friendly Fridge and Freezer before he develops Farmer Giles.

Ernsty is having trouble with his Hampstead Heath.and suggesting others take a Jimmy Riddle. His Mince Pies are also playing him up.

I suggest a nice cup of Rosie Lee with the Trouble and Strife to calm things down.

Simples.

20 November 2012 at 14:35  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Dodo:

I think you're having a giraffe with that last post ;)

20 November 2012 at 15:41  
Blogger Gary said...

Once again the Church is voting to rebel against God's word. How vile are we! No wonder we are dying here. Soon we will be nothing but a persecuted remnant, and we will only have ourselves to blame.

20 November 2012 at 15:49  
Blogger William said...

HG: "There are also those Roman Catholics who support women bishops in the hope that the Church of England disintegrates, "

Dodo: "Ummm ... interesting comment reflecting a somewhat suspicious and, might one suggest, somewhat uncharitable view of Catholics."

Damian Thompson was espousing such views only yesterday in the Telegraph.

20 November 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

graham wood: Behind Pauls' thinking about ministry as a whole lies his basic premise that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal.3:28).

Really? Why does he never repeat that in the pastoral epistles? Or is it that you are bringing a text which has nothing to do with the situation at hand and importing it into the pastoral letters which are addressing totally different issues?

As N T Wright points out that is not to say that there are not real gender differences, gifts and ministries for both, but the old distinctions of the separation of women in the OT and taught in the Torah, no longer apply to believers of both genders who are "in Christ".

It is simply saying that in Christ Jesus, i.e. in salvation, we are one through union with him. And it seems to me like egalitarians are denying the uniqueness of each gender.

How then do you interpret Gal.3:28 as practically applied to the issue of women in ministry?

The verse is not addressing the issue. If you want to find out how to work the headlights on a car, don't turn to "engine" in the manual. If you want to work out how to run a church, why not go to the epistles Paul dedicates to this rather than one which is largely dedicated to justification?

To show the bogus nature of the application that you are making from Gal 3:28, let me modify it:

Egalitarian:

1) There is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.
2) Men can minister in the church.
3) Therefore, women can minister in the church.

Alternative:

1) There is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.
2) Men can marry and have sex with women.
3) Therefore, women can marry and have sex with women. (Or, men can marry and have sex with men).

Unless you can show that these arguments are relevantly disanalogous, they suffice to show that your interpretation of Gal 3:28 is wrong insofar as it leads to an unbiblical conclusion.

I believe similar arguments could be made on the same passages to prove that husbands should submit to their wives, that masters should submit to their slaves, and analogously that parents should submit to their children.

20 November 2012 at 16:10  
Blogger chorale said...

A little bit of light relief from the serious issues of the day.

It's always amusing, as a Cockney born and dragged up, to witness people's belief that they understand our 'slang'. You just ain't got it !
The true Cockney you see, very rarely includes the rhyme itself.
As follows, with the erroneously included completions in brackets -
Rosie (Lee) Tea
Syrup (of figs) wig
Barnet (Fair) hair
China (plate) mate
Plates (of meat) feet
Apples (and pears) stairs
Jimmy (riddle) Piddle
Dog (and bone) phone
Boat (race) face
Whitehall (farce) a**e
Daisy (roots) boots
Trouble (and strife) wife
Bubble (and squeak) Greek
North (and south) mouth
Hence, upon meeting a friend in the street, it might go as follows:-
"Alright me old china, I see you got a new pair of daisies, bet they're pinching the old plates a bit. I'm just off to the caff for a cup a rosie. I see your trouble the other day with that new syrup she got on the market - wearing it for a bet is she?"

And so it goes on - I'll have to stop now and run up the apples for a Jimmy.........

There are over three hundred rhyming slang expressions, and more than a hundred of them are truly obscene !

Chris Baker - (now) Durham UK

20 November 2012 at 16:12  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

I do wish Damian Thompson was less caustic in his views. Strong adherence to belief is one thing, but uncharitable views quite another. He has a thing going about the current hierarchy in the Catholic Church and hopes the Ordinariate will somehow change their perceived liberal ways. That said, I do think Anglican priests celebrate Mass better whether Ordinariate or not.

On another matter, Canon Rosie Harper has suggested in Synod that traditionalists are stuck in the past and are of lower moral standards. Justin Welby is promising the impossible because he's promoting a Measure that does not offer what he thinks he can deliver!

Did someone mention Anglican fudge?

20 November 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger Julian Mann said...

My apologies - the Galatians reference in the last paragraph of my previous comment should be 3v28.

The Bishop of Liverpool has just deployed an extraordinary argument in the Synod debate regarding Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 11v3 - 'I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God'.

Bishop Jones said: 'But I’ve come to see that to believe “God is the head of Christ” cannot mean that Christ is subordinate to God or that Christ has less authority than God. Otherwise we would be denying the full divinity of Jesus. Therefore, headship in this verse cannot mean that a woman is subordinate to man or has less authority than a man.'

As Oak Hill Principal Dr Michael Ovey showed in his outstanding addresses on the Trinity last week at the Fulwood Conference, the New Testament rejects such secular egalitarianism in its teaching on the Trinity. As the divine Son of God, who fully revealed the character of God (John 1v18), Jesus did what all sons should do - he obeyed his Father. Paul in Philippians states that wonderful obedience very explicity in chapter 2 - 'And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross; (v8 - RSV).

Dr Ovey showed that the Son's filial obedience was not just in his incarnate state - in his Manhood - but also in his eternal Godhead. If we say Jesus' obedience only applied to his incarnation, we dismiss Jesus as the full revelation of God.

God the Son is no less divine for obeying his Father; I am no less human for obeying my spiritual leaders in the Church.

20 November 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Mr Mann: I'd be interested if you could point me to anywhere I could get hold of Dr Ovey's speech? This kind of subordinationism is a particular interest of mine at the moment.

However, I don't agree that if Jesus' submission pertains only relevantly to his incarnation then he fails to reveal God, principally because New Testament teaching is that Jesus is primarily a revelation of His Father, viz. John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known" (I'm led to believe that "made him known" is something like "exegeted"). In that passage it's clear that the first "God" is being used as a proper noun referring to the Father. But how can Jesus' submission be revelatory of the Father, who submits to no-one?

20 November 2012 at 17:07  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I wish I had gone to Church more often now, only the real World caught up with me and I saw the futility of quoting scripture at folk

I support women bishops, men never did suit wearing frocks and trying to ward off evil with a quote or two

20 November 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger Julian Mann said...

Here is the link to the talks at the Fulwood Conference:

http://fulwoodchurch.co.uk/resources/talks?ref=nav

Re John 1v18, God the Son's loving filial obedience must be seen as one facet of his revelation of the divine nature, given that there is subordination within the Trinity.

20 November 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Thanks very much Mr Mann, I'll be sure to have a listen.

With regard to John 1:18, isn't this the very point at issue- whether there is submission within the immanent Trinity, and if so how? No-one doubts some kind of hierarchy with reference to the incarnation, but that does muddy the waters rather when it comes to referring it back to the immanent Trinity.

I'd be happy to be corrected with some non-incarnational submission references, and I genuinely mean that as I've been rather bemused about this issue lately.

20 November 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Heard a lady on the radio today say there are more female bottoms on pews than male, so there has to be womanly bishops.

With that kind of devastating theological argument, coupled with “it’s not fair there aren’t any”, the cause of opposition is lost, don’t you think…

But the Inspector does offer his own counter – mens brains are larger than female brains. There is a damn good reason for that, so girls, work it out, if you can !

Good Lord ! The Inspector believes he has discovered women’s weakness – it is matters logic and thought deep ! You see, they are just not equipped for it !

Anyway, from what said lady implied, the CoE is about to hit record attendances, all thanks to bishopettes. In the commercial world, that kind of optimism would be given its own sales pitch, so here it is…

“New, Christian lite, slimmers CoE now with croutons” !

No longer religion as we know it Jim, but a brand. Bon appetite, what !

20 November 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Sisters are doing it for themselves
Taking over religion
Showing the men how it’s done
Sisters are doing it for themselves
Coming out of the kitchen
Standing woman to woman
And there ain’t no room for the men !



20 November 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Meanwhile here is the 2019 news.

The responsibility for the fire bomb attack on one of the many Anglican churches that marries gay people as well as men to animals, has been claimed by the Provisional wing of the CoE. The shadowy organisation which adheres to pre 1990 canon law, and does not appoint women clergy so is in breach of the Equality Act 2014, which provides for severe punishment for non compliance, including ultimately, the death penalty. It’s leader calls himself “The REAL Archbishop of Canterbury”. There is also a semi autonomous ‘Northern Command’ whose chief of staff is REAL York.

20 November 2012 at 18:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ring out the solstice bells (early) !

Glorious Defeat> !

God save the Queen...


20 November 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Inspector,

Looks like the Synod's lay people have voted it down against the wishes of the bishops and clergy.

20 November 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger Flossie said...

I've been glued to the livestream of the Synod debate all afternoon - some very good speeches, some utterly feeble ones (from proponents of women bishops, naturally), but the best one in my view had to be the winding-up speech from Anglus MacLeay, in which he discussed the past, present and future of the story of women's ordination.

'The past' related to the promises made in 1993 to opponents of WO, which of course have been subsequently broken and not considered binding on the present generation - a bit like the current promise of 'respect', really. (He didn't say that last bit, I did.)

'The present' I can't quite remember what he said - perhaps Julian Mann can put me straight if he was also listening - but as for the future, he pointed across the water to the persecution of the orthodox like Bishop Mark Lawrence by the Presiding Bishop of the USA, who has refused to bend the knee to her new version of Christianity. Why people think things would be any different over here I cannot imagine.

Just waiting for the outcome of the vote.

20 November 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger Flossie said...

Women Bishops Measure lost:

Bishops 44 for 3 against 2 abstentions

Clergy 148 for 45 against 0 abstentions

Laity 132 for 74 against 0 abstentions

20 November 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

And they held off voting until they had the chance to see the Inspector’s opinion (probably)...

A chorus of ‘Jerusalem’ anyone ?


20 November 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger John Henson said...

The tail wagging the dog (again).

Looks like it's time to persuade our PCC to stop paying its parish share until sense kicks in.

20 November 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Interesting times ahead. If you thought it was ugly before, just watch the next 48 hours. The Red Flag is going to be struck, and a Black Flag put in its place.

I must admit to being surprised. I expected this to pass by a few votes. I thought a few waivering opponents would be seduced. At the end, the CoE stepped back from the brink of oblivion.

carl

20 November 2012 at 18:43  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

John Henson

"Looks like it's time to persuade our PCC to stop paying its parish share until sense kicks in"

Nobody won or lost as it said on 1 peter we need everyone in the church to make living walls. If one group is kicked out then the whole wall is in danger of falling down and the Church is finished. A point that Carl has made many times.

It will also give us more time to see further fruit of the consequence of this from Anglicans who have already adopted this in other parts of the world.

Phil

20 November 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Okay Mr Mann, I've listened to the relevant bit of Dr Ovey's discussion and am convinced with one reservation: Jesus calls the Father His God. I had always taken that as being relevant to the incarnation. But are we to believe that the Father is the Son's God from all eternity? If so, what does that mean, what are its implications for our theology?

20 November 2012 at 18:50  
Blogger Julian Mann said...

Thank you Sir - glad you found the talks helpful.

Believing in eternal subordination within the Trinity does not necessitate becoming an Arian. We can still hold that the Son is begotten not created, of one substance with the Father.

20 November 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

To paraphrase Churchill...

“Gentlemen, we may allow ourselves a brief period of gloating...”


20 November 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger John Henson said...

Phil Roberts said...

Nobody won or lost


Oh yes they did; the many women who have been ordained over the last 20 years, without whose ministry the CofE would have sunk long ago, have been kicked in the teeth.

It's a funny thing, I don't recall anyone getting too exercised about the parish in Maidenhead which withholds its parish share due to its opposition to the ordination of women. Not that I'm surprised as I'm getting used to the misogyny within the Oxford diocese.

20 November 2012 at 19:08  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

It looks as though the poor women will have to stick to joining the armed forces and fighting the wars then {insert scripture of choice}

20 November 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John Henson, are you a homosexual by any chance ?

20 November 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Just reading the reactions on this from several news sites. It is interesting to note the lack of Christianity amongst the liberals who are going a trifle mad here. What about praying, after all God has all the time in the world, or this that too old fashioned and not modern enough?

20 November 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Thomas Kenningly asked ...

"But are we to believe that the Father is the Son's God from all eternity? If so, what does that mean, what are its implications for our theology?"

And no answer of substance was forthcoming.

The Father is not the Son's nor the Spirit's God! You're skirting between monotheism and tritheism here.

There is "subordinationism" and there is "relational subordination".

In relational subordination, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are said to be 'subordinate' to God the Father because they never command the Father, but do the will of the Father. This does not mean that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are in any way inferior to the Father by nature or being - He is not their God! The Son and the Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal with the Father; they are of the same being or substance as the Father.

Was Athanasius wrong when he says, "All that can be said of the Father can be said of the Son except for calling him Father."?

The Father, the Son and the Spirit are fully equal in being, work and authority, and yet they are eternally Father, Son and Spirit. You cannot divide the Father and the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Neither the Nicene Creed nor the Athanasian Creed teach the primacy of the Father over the Son and the Spirit - or their subordination to the Father.

The Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed speak of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed gives no priority to the Father, ("such is the Father such is the Son .. " and, all are "co-equal").

Have a read of the Athanasian Creed.

20 November 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

John Henson

So much for my attempt a Church unity with the book of Peter as an example

So in that vein

"Women.....without whose ministry the CofE would have sunk long ago"

We don't know that. I am not against Women's Ministry. I am a great fan of Joyce Meyer. However, I would say that her main message is to women and her main concern is for the poor.

She has said herself that sticking to Biblical teaching as far as gender was concerned was difficult at first. However, until she did what God requires, her ministry did not take off. After she did (She mentions her earlier struggles to properly honour her husband as the head of the family) it took off and what a fantastic ministry it now is.

What would the CofE be like without Women ministering to men? We do not know, but an inkling can be found in the large numbers that attend the Churches (conservative evangelical) that do not have ordained women in leadership over men.

Finally misogyny is a stupid word to use to describe your fellow Christians. You know it is not true, but just use it nonetheless to create division and anger.

Remember it is God's way not our way.

Phil









20 November 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Gentlemen, let us not recognise this moment for what it is. In the hands of women, the great compromisers, the CoE would have turned into a bloody big coffee outlet with the occasional church service. Stone walls covered by dividers in pastel colours with primary school children's paintings on them. An earthly place, nothing to do with worship...


20 November 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger bluedog said...

A fascinating and unexpected outcome, Your Grace.

Your communicant anticipates that in the finest traditions of the EU, the House of Laity will be pressured to vote and vote again until they get it right in the interests of the over-riding principle of equality.

Than which there is no higher authority.

20 November 2012 at 20:08  
Blogger John Henson said...

Office of Inspector General said...
John Henson, are you a homosexual by any chance ?


In reply to your direct question I'll restrict myself to two comments:

1. My sexuality is none of your business and is also irrelevant to the issue, but as you seem to have an unhealthy interest in it, I'm willing to let you know that I'm not homosexual.

2. I used to post on blogs (including this one) under a pseudonym, but came to realise that this was both silly and cowardly. If you are not prepared to associate yourself with your comments, your comments are not worth making. When you're prepared to do likewise I'll take your comments seriously, but until then I won't.

20 November 2012 at 20:13  
Blogger Alison Phillips said...

Your Grace

Is not the Head of the Church a woman?

What Would Jesus Do? Perhaps Jesus wants Women Bishops because Male Bishops have failed - just like God gave grace to the Gentiles. Perhaps God wants to spread Bishophness around a bit more and include those who thought they were excluded? It reminds me of the old "eat or eat not pork" and "should we circumcise" arguments that plagued the early church.

Jesus was full of surprises and He love us so he will be sad that there is now division.

Anon.

20 November 2012 at 20:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Bit worrying the Shepherds were kept in line by their flock!

- Bishops 44 for 3 against and 2 abstentions

- Clergy 148 for 45 against and 0 abstentions

20 November 2012 at 20:21  
Blogger John Henson said...

Phil Roberts said...

What would the CofE be like without Women ministering to men? We do not know ...


I do know. Our outstanding (female) vicar has built our church so that we regularly get in excess of 200 in total to two Sunday services


Finally misogyny is a stupid word to use to describe your fellow Christians

Sadly Phil, I know of which I speak. I have in the past contacted HG directly on certain matters, but I would be breaching confidences by expounding here in public.

20 November 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John Henson, your reply appreciated. The next question the Inspector had for you is that the possibility you are a woman masquerading as a man for greater impact, as indeed the thoughts of a man are taken far more seriously than a woman’s. However you have pre-emptied that. Do forgive the question on your sexuality. You see, we had a queer type who resided her until recently and was a damn disruptive type. It looks like he’s been a victim of his own ‘gay abandon’ philosophy, and is lying low for the time being, wound licking, if you will...

Anyway, had to check you out old fellow. You pass. As for posting under ones real name, the Inspector’s employers would show him the door, if not tomorrow, then the day after.

Toodle pip, old chap...


20 November 2012 at 20:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John

So are you bi-sexual, then?

(That is a joke, by the way)

20 November 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Alison

"Jesus was full of surprises and He love us so he will be sad that there is now division. "

There was division before. The positive outcome of this will be I think that maybe members of WATCH will perhaps behave in more as brothers and sisters in Christ.

I like to agree with you about Women Bishops. My view is when we kick God out of the driving seat of our lives because we think he is not driving well enough and we can do better, we crash the car!

Take Bishop Schori. She presides over a church that appoints homosexual Bishops, states that abortion is a blessing, does not agree with whole books of the Bible. Sorry, I cannot see any virtue there.

That said, women have a fantastic ministry for the church. My wife meets with other women to pray for a local Garrison Church. To be honest I thought she was wasting her time. Fantastic growth (5 to 200+ in 6 months), marvelous things happening.

True, we are all involved now. But, the women started it all with prayer and it keeps it growing because they pray and it started because they prayed when the men (Me included)were not willing to ask God for a miracle.

But a miracle happened

Phil

20 November 2012 at 20:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Phil aid ...

"Take Bishop Schori."

No thanks.

"She presides over a church that appoints homosexual Bishops, states that abortion is a blessing, does not agree with whole books of the Bible. Sorry, I cannot see any virtue there."

Yeah but she sure sports a mean Mitre, Cassock and Crosier!

(And to think she was a Roman Catholic as a child until her parents left the Church.)

20 November 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger John Magee said...

What is the future of a National Church when the majority of it's bishops and clergy voted for something it's lay people voted against?

Maybe it's time the laity of the Church of England think about turning out the lights, close Lambeth Palace, lock the door behind them,send all the miters, copes, and croziers back to the costume rental service, and hand the deed to all the ancient Medieval cathedrals and churches in Britain back to the Church they stole them from when Henry VIII broke from Rome. The Roman Catholic Church, which still has a backbone an the authority because it's the true Church.

Former Anglican Bishops would make wonderful social workers or set designers for plays and movies.A few would make excellent boy scout leaders.

Protestant National Churches have abandoned out their own beliefs and traditions and therefore have no reason to continue to exist in the 21st century.

The C of E is turning into the Church of Comedy.

Very sad. The last great hope of a return to the unity of Christendom between Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans was extinguished by the bird brains that run this outfit when the decided to ordain priestesses in the 1990's.

Bishopettes will sooner or later be consecrated by this Church and when it happens that will be the last nail in the coffin of this once great Church.

So be it.

Benedicamus Domino

20 November 2012 at 21:34  
Blogger Gary said...

An answer to prayer. God be praised!

20 November 2012 at 21:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Mr Magee said ...

"Former Anglican Bishops would make wonderful social workers"

I beg to differ.

20 November 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger Johnzh said...

Hallelujah, this is wonderful news.

Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? The rulers (bishops and clergy) take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed (Word).

Some may say that this is the tail wagging the dog, preposterous, there is no such thing under the new covenant as laity and priesthood. The Bible clearly states that all (believers) in Christ are a Royal priesthood.

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: (1 Peter 2:9)

Not only should there not be women bishops, it is a perversion of God's Word for women to be in authority over men-Read at all,1Corinthians chapter 11. So let's see an end of the so-called women priests.

It is time that a Godly men took up their God ordained mantles and sounded the trumpet in Zion throughout this formally great nation, where Christ was revered and honoured for centuries.

As the Liberals gnash their teeth this evening after their failed attempt to further delegitimise the church of England, He who sits in the heavens shall laugh, He shall have them in derision.

Be wise therefore you rulers of the Earth, kiss the Son lest he be angry, and you perish from the way when His wrath is kindled but a little.

20 November 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Frankly I don't see what all the fuss is about. When the Anglican Church decided to ordain women as priests it would follow that the next step is women becoming Bishops . I do not see it as reasonable to expect that they would not want to become Bishops.

When the Anglican Church permits ssm it will not be unreasonable to expect that at some stage in the future the Archbishop of Canterbury will be a drag queen married to a letterbox.


20 November 2012 at 22:07  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Hi Dodo, I’d be interested in hearing your view on this as we obviously have more in common on Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity than much else.

The Father is not the Son's nor the Spirit's God! You're skirting between monotheism and tritheism here.

I was referring to statements like this in John 20:17: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” The question is, are the Father and the Son eternally in this relationship of the Father being “my God”, or is this a peculiarity of the incarnation. I’m inclined to the latter view, but wonder if that does not undermine the good Dr Ovey’s point (available in the audio, the first 20 minutes).

I agree with what you say about the relationship of the Trinity being one of full equality. There still remains the question of passages like the above.

Was Athanasius wrong when he says, "All that can be said of the Father can be said of the Son except for calling him Father."?

I’m not sure what Athanasius means by that, but I think I’d largely agree. There must be something that distinguishes the Son from the Father, although what that is in their persons seems trickier to pin down.

So I’m agreed on co-equality in the sense you’re talking about it, i.e. none of the three persons is superior, but then we do have the question of the Father’s authority, presumably a necessary personal attribute but not denigrating to the other two persons. I’m in broad agreement with Nicea and the Athanasian creed, though I remain unconvinced by “begotten” for the Son and “proceeding” for the Spirit, as I worry that if they mean that the Father communicates the divine essence to the Son (and similarly the Father and Son to the Spirit) then how does that avoid making the Son and Spirit creatures?

20 November 2012 at 22:15  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Not to worry ladies, leave the boys to their frocks, I have a pair of trousers you can get in

blah blah {more scripture} blah blah

20 November 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Galant said...

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge... So the people without understanding are ruined."

Such a hard subject, because it is so poorly understood. There is something so beautiful, and wonderful and productive in the traditional and true doctrine of male responsibility (I call it that because I believe that saying 'responsibility' rather than 'leadership' gets to the heart of the matter) and we risk losing it all just because we haven't looked deep enough.

Like the scientists who said 80% of DNA was 'junk DNA' only to find out it's actually all useful, we must be careful not to 'junk' the deeper and seemingly more complicated doctrines.

The challenge is for the defenders of this wonderful truth to teach the truth, beauty and wisdom of it, not simply shout down those who oppose it. However, this will, I am beginning to feel, require a transformation in how we look at and set up 'church' structures and consider church leadership. The 'one many army' model wont cut it. We need to start looking again at the integrity of the family with the larger church, and that it is fathers and wives needed in both. When the church becomes divorced from the family, things will start to break down.

Let the men be encouraged and helped by their wives to take and meet responsibility. Let the men depend upon God for the grace and wisdom to meet it. Let the children watch and learn and benefit from strong, loving, faithful responsibility, and loving, humble, supportive respect in action. And let all work together, work hard, tenaciously, in the Kingdom.

This doctrine does not mean wasted gifts of women. It means men should be encouraged to take up responsibility like men commissioned to command - and let them command even if 'young'. And let those female seasoned soldiers and NCO's lend their support and wisdom to the ones on whom the burden falls. And let them all fight together.

That's the best analogy I've found for it.

It's about ability, it's about delegated authority and responsibility.

I believe there is so much practical benefit to be gained through this doctrine. It's just been poorly understood and poorly communicated. On top of that, just as in the incredible symbolism of marriage (God ordained and purposed) we throw away so much symbolism if we throw away this doctrine, and lose so much beauty and truth in doing so.

This is not an easy subject but let courageous men and women stand up and defend the truth in all its beauty and goodness for the betterment of the whole church, all families, and indeed the world.

20 November 2012 at 22:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The Way of Dodo said...

Thomas Kenningly asked ...
Dear Dickie, quite nicely expressed but such a shame about all the other RCC nonsense you hold to! *;-O and chuckles*

Throughout the whole of the Gospel of John we get explicit statements regarding His Deity as The Word of God which is the whole aim of John.
Matthew wrote of The Messiah as his aim hence the opening genealogy of Jesus from Abraham, Mark for busy Romans which spoke of Jesus the Servant ministering to needy people hence no genealogy of Jesus and Luke for the Greeks and introduced them to the sympathetic Son and presented Jesus as the Son of Man hence the opening genealogy of Jesus from Adam.

Johns opening genealogy of Jesus is the glorious statement
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
Jhn 1:2 this one was in the beginning with God;
Jhn 1:3 all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.
Jhn 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men,
Jhn 1:5 and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it.

But it was given to John, the beloved disciple, to write a book for both Jews and Gentiles, presenting Jesus as the Son of God. We know that John had Gentiles in mind as well as Jews, because he often “interpreted” Jewish words or customs for his readers in John 1:38, 41–42; 5:2; 9:7; 19:13, 17; 20:16. His emphasis to the Jews was that Jesus not only fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies, but He also fulfilled the types. Jesus is the Lamb of God (John 1:29) and the Ladder from heaven to earth (John 1:51; Gen.28). He is the New Temple (John 2:19–21), and He gives a new birth (John 3:4 and following".). He is the serpent lifted up (John 3:14) and the Bread of God that came down from heaven (John 6:35 and following".).
Whereas the first three Gospels major on describing events in the life of Christ, John emphasised the meaning of these events. For example, all four gospels record the feeding of the five thousand, but only John records Jesus’ sermon on “The Bread of Life,” which followed that miracle when He interpreted it for the people.

John makes clear that Jesus’ statement about the Father being the only true God in no way was meant to deny that Christ is God as well, since he goes on to make claims that only God could make. Jesus is simply addressing the Father for being the only true God since this is what he truly is, and yet we know from the same Bible that the only true God exists as more than one Person. The Holy Scriptures plainly show that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are also truly God.

Therefore, since the one true God exists as a Trinity this means that the three Persons can be addressed as the only true God both individually and collectively. Putting it another way:

1.The Trinity is the only true God.
2.Each specific member of the Trinity is the only true God.
3.Therefore, the members of the Trinity are the only true God, whether individually or collectively.

This is why Jesus can speak of one member of the Trinity as the only true God without this implying that the other members are not God.


Blofeld

20 November 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Hebrews 1:8-12 says:

"But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.’ He also says, ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.’"

The Father praises his Son by calling him God, Lord, eternal King and for being the Creator and Sustainer of all creation! The same Scriptures teach that Jesus is the only sovereign Master and Lord:

"For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jude 1:4

Now does this mean that the Father is not God, sovereign Master, Lord, and the Creator of the heavens and the earth? The answer is obvious. The Father, according to the Holy Bible, is just as much God, Master, Lord, and just as responsible for creating and sustaining the universe as the Son is. In a similar way, the Son glorifying his Father as the only true God doesn’t mean that Christ was denying that he is full Deity as well.

Having greater authority doesn't necessarily mean that the person is greater in essence, or that the one who is in subjection to another is inferior in nature to the other. To assume otherwise is to make a categorical mistake, a category fallacy, treating two distinct categories (nature and authority) as if they were one and same.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after DESTROYING every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all."

Here is an example of how one member of the Godhead can give to another member something without this implying that one of them isn't God. Note that the Father subjected all things to the Son, and that the Son gives to the Father the kingdom. Christ's sovereignty and supremacy is clearly seen in this passage since he has the ability to destroy all other powers and authorities, bringing them into complete subjection to the Father. Thus, the Son receiving authority to rule no more disproves that he is God then the Father receiving the kingdom from his Son disproves that he is God also.

We need to keep in mind that, according to the Scriptures, Christ voluntarily came down from heaven in order to assume the role of a slave, a servant. While on earth, the Lord Jesus subjected himself to the authority of the Father, doing nothing of his own initiative, but only doing the very thing that the Father commanded and desired.

In response to Christ voluntarily humbling himself and becoming a slave/servant, the Father then exalted him:

Philippians 2:9-11 says "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Blofeld

20 November 2012 at 23:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A little titter ye not light relief

Three senior boys in a very strict Christian school had been trying to convert a younger lad for some time, but to no avail. One day, out of sheer frustration they got hold of him and took him to the water butt which was full of water.
Two of the boys held him while the third pushed his head under the water. As he came up spluttering they asked him, "Have you found the Lord? "No", he replied, wiping the water away from his eyes.
Again, his head was pushed under the water, further this time and for a little longer. He came up gasping for breath and the other boys asked him loudly, "Have you found the Lord?"
"No" he whimpered. "No"
A third time he was ducked, this time for a very long time and as they lifted his head to just above the water they literally screamed at him, "Have you found the Lord Yet?"
"No" he cried, "Are you really sure he's in here?"

(In the style of the Two Ronnies)

.. and finally, the soprano Miss Scarlet de Borgia and the fine Counter tenor Mr Dodo were heard singing "I will not pass this way again" on the blog, giving obvious pleasure to His Grace's congregation. *chortles and sniggering*

20 November 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Thomas

"There must be something that distinguishes the Son from the Father, although what that is in their persons seems trickier to pin down."

I am no theologian, as you know!

In words it is impossible to explain the Trinity and many brilliant, inspired minds have tried. How can we possibly put into language the nature of God?

" ... none of the three persons is superior, but then we do have the question of the Father’s authority, presumably a necessary personal attribute but not denigrating to the other two persons."

Is it really being under authority to follow the will of the Father or is it a feature of true unity? An eternal single essence that is a unity of love?

Jesus was and is both God and man - and One, as man and God with the Father and the Spirit. Can you leave/seperate from Eternity and then return/rejoin Eternity?

"I’m in broad agreement with Nicea and the Athanasian creed"

Well, that's good! I trust as a Christian its more than broad agreement. I mean, it took the early Church 400 years to fathom and attempt to express this most ancient of mysteries.

" ... but then"

Its in the but then's that we explore, question and with God's help, deepen our faith. Its also fraught with hazards given our human limitations.

(That's why I'm a Catholic - I can only go so far on my own!)

20 November 2012 at 23:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A notice on the board at the local Good Companions pop in center for the elderly: "We are pleased to note that there has been a change of mind by the local Housing Department regarding the name for the new housing complex for the elderly opposite the central parade. "St Peter's Close" did seem somewhat inappropriate".

*Huge guffaws*

20 November 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ah my dear Ernsty, how you would miss me if I was gone!

I am here to bring you a proper of understanding of the Catholic Church. Here to help the scales of prejudice drop from your eyes. To put behind you 80+ years (am I close?) of protestant indoctrination.

And besides, it staves off the advancing dementia having you sleuthing around trying to uncover dastardly subtefuge as you seek out the ever elusive Dodo the Diddy Dude.

My song to you:

"Penny farthings on the street riding
Motorcars were funny things, frightening
Bow and hoops and spinning tops
Penny Dreadfuls, lollipops
Comic cuts, all different things"




20 November 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

"Ernsty, Ernsty you're crazy
That's what we all think of you
Ernsty, Ernsty, you're loopy
That's what we all think of you
Ernsty, Ernsty


Chortles, chuckles, coughs, splutters and loud Guffaws.

20 November 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

And Ps

That joke was one about about adult 'born again' Baptism.

Just thought you should know.

Giggle, giggle.

20 November 2012 at 23:44  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It's the right decision otherwise the Church would have weaker and even more hypocritical and have lost its credibility completely. This way it stands firm like the rock we need to guide us when we stray or loose our way in a fast paced world that is forever changing sometimes not for the better. The Church represents stability and is our roots. Whilst a lot of women will no doubt be disappointed, it's for the best in the long term.

21 November 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cresside de Nova said ...

"When the Anglican Church permits ssm it will not be unreasonable to expect that at some stage in the future the Archbishop of Canterbury will be a drag queen married to a letterbox."

Very good. Are you sure you are not Jewish? Its that or you acquired their humour whilst amongst them.

At least being 'married' to a letterbox offers a greater chance of 'consumation' than with a parking meter!

(Yes, I know Carl, I shouldn't do it. Get the shotgun loaded!)

21 November 2012 at 00:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

That joke was one about about adult 'born again' Baptism. (It was a joke!)

Just thought you should know.(Cheers for the heads up)

(That's why I'm a Catholic - I can only go so far on my own!) Indeed. That's why old Ernst is here to assist you turn 180 and head in the right direction. Think of Old Ernst as a spiritual Tom Tom who has found you in blogatory following Darth Pater's directions, hence the Doom doom doom, doom, doom dooom, doom doom doom sound you have been hearing ??
"Lost are you in tiberian cul de sac, around turn possible to the light,when chance you get", when he has righted you towards the Strait and Narrow, voice will be heard to exclaim "Oooh I say old bird, you've reached your destination, ding dong!HALLELUJA" !!

Ernst

ps

Would you prefer that in latin or greek??

21 November 2012 at 00:14  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Consider the lilies...

This 'gift' of equality was not about equality for women, but like Edward Bernay's "torches of freedom" it was to entice women's egos to feel equal, whilst both genders died early in their millions. It is the offering of the rosey apple at the church door, a wrong spirit like the one the UK bit into called Socialism, but was really filled with the poison called Communism.

Women work and have no time for their children. Thousands of whores live in modern subsidized housing. A more 'Ground Zero' you could not dream of: No ties or ownership of family, no home, no loyalty to kin and country. Just the State, that pays £500 of someone else's money on your birth.

The church represents the enemy to these Communists. Here, men are not challenged by women, who see the male role to instruct and protect without prejudice, and their female role to nurture and heal without prejudice. So much so that a father takes the bastards off the council estate to play football with his children, and a mother feeds the waifs good food and a reads a story to them when they return. This is evolution: The best male was a hunter and psychologist, the female the best gatherer and sociologist.

Such was nature, until now. The social engineers have a bigger plan. And it requires creating the 'masses' as a means to an end.

The deliberate genetic downbreeding and influx of low IQ populations are rewarded for increasing their stupidity-genes into the host nation.
The middle class, seeing the poverty ahead, instinctively do not breed, rather to wait when the rains come and they will be 'in-season'. But the country fills up with more headless chickens, and they are made to pay for this, and they become outnumbered, but they are still not 'in-season'and do not reproduce their intelligence.

The dumbing down of education, the mediocrity of society. Oligarchs and Corporations friendly with the government-class, rule. Centres of Excellence become Common Purpose. Enterprise is squashed. "No one makes it on their own" is their mantra.

Consider the lilies...

What was natural in humans had taken millions of years of man-woman relationships. Yet in a few decades it will be a Hate Crime to think normal. Everyone will belong to a politicised group based on age, gender, sexuality, race, and color. The smartest will be riddiculed and shamed for being talented. Communism.

And The Church stands in Communism's way.

The offering for equality is not to save the church, to live up to 'God's Promise'. Equality can be seen today where men, particularly white men, are openly discriminated against. It is to tear the Church apart from what is normal. Rather than to find solace in the protection of the Family of Man, it is to discover a broken home just like the one you ran from.

Husbands and wives are not interchageable. They have distinct and chromosomes and brains.

Genetically, and by the selective down-breeding from the poor and feckless, it will be easy to have a pliant East European style alcohol-and-religion dependant zealot to herd them where they are needed to sacrifce themsleves for the Greater Cause.

Every herbivor has it carnivor, every person made sheep has its High Priest, every Man made Citizen has it's Lawyer, every slave its master.

The Church teaches humankind has only one God to answer to, and their Chosen Man made it to blaze a trail to follow.

In this, they are correct.

21 November 2012 at 00:59  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

Ops. I should have said some Anglican Bishops would make good SOCIALIST workers (politicians)

My Dad who was brought up an Episcopalian (that's what Anglicans call themselves on side of the Gulf Stream)and had absolutely no understanding of organized religion always said the only difference he could see between between Anglicans (I assume he meant High Church) and Roman Catholics was the red tape we RC's are obsessed with.

Red tape as defined in the dictionary..."as excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that is considered redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making. It is usually applied to governments, corporations and other large organizations."

21 November 2012 at 01:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

It's the way you tell 'em Ernsty! Now off to bed with you.

Amissus vos estis in protestando error, circum converte possibilis lumine, cum forte vos adepto.

21 November 2012 at 01:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee

Then your Dad had no genuine understanding of Catholicism at all. Pray for his soul.

21 November 2012 at 01:13  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

Naaaaa... My Dad was half Scottish. I'll drink a glass of Dewar's in his memory. God and the angels will give a nod or maybe even a devil or two will give a wink. :)

21 November 2012 at 01:49  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

carus amicus.. non est nisi unus lux mundi et non est repperi in Roma .

Ernstenixus Stavromulus Blofeldicus

21 November 2012 at 02:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

This is where this nonsense will lead

"The Rev Canon Rosie Harper, a leading campaigner for women bishops, said: “It’s quite hard not to take it personally. I think institutionalised discrimination will continue and this is very bad news for the Church of England."

Wonder where all this will lead us....

"The Rev Canon Geraldine Gardiner, a leading campaigner for the wicca wing within the CofR said "I think institutionalised discrimination against Lawbreakers should stop and that the idea that Christ is the only way is prejudicial and grossly unfair. We are demanding that anyone who suffers this kind of bigoted behaviour from those intolerant members within the CofE to raise the matter formally with the Secretary for the Department of Equality for Apathetic Lawbreakers (DEAL)

Ben Bradshaw, the Secretary for the Department of Equality for Apathetic Lawbreakers (DEAL) and Chris Bryant, his minister , said: “This means the Lawbreakers, without discrimination, are being held hostage by an alliance of a God who we never asked to create us and certain intolerant lawbreakers with a misplaced but unlawful belief that they must do as He says, which is now punishable under recent legislation. This is both unholy and unrepresentative of how we feel all lawbreakers should be viewed.

DEAL's view is that any Grace should be given without repentance or discrimination of any kind and is covered under the revised Human Rights Act 2015 'The Right to Our Rights' that include the universal right to participate in decision making involving any eternal destiny or destination concerning you.

The new Right to Remain Indigenous Lawbreakers has come into force and we have employed G4 and their staff to serve as experts in their individual capacities, to examine questions relevant to enforced or involuntary disappearances of persons by a Deity and how you can ensure this does not happen to you. We call this 'operation Sodom and Gomorrah'.

The Universal Right to Human Rights headquarters has been established in Tel Meggido, Israel (overlooking a sweeping majestic valley)and is available to assist all sufferers of rights infringement, in holding the perpetrators to task.

This is covered by the Right to Bear Arms against any hostile deity within the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Lawbreakers.

Dial 666+ 600 60 6 to speak to an adviser who will advise you of these rights and how you can inform and successfully imprison those that discriminate against you. It's not personal, it's done for their sake!

Our staff are waiting to hear from you 24/7 and fight to get the justice you deserve against the intolerant.

DEAL - It's our pledge to you and we are prepared to fight for it!!.

21 November 2012 at 04:12  
Blogger John Magee said...

"Neither side is content: both are irked by the compromise. This would appear to be quite genuinely and consistently Anglican."

It atcually reads like the genuine and consistent symptoms of an organization without a backbone that has been trying to kill itself in one way or another for the past 500 years and is now in hospital suffering it's death throes while the doctor tells the C of E family it's "only" the DT's.

We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.

Same thing applies to wimpy churches.

21 November 2012 at 06:09  
Blogger Naomi King said...


I thank God for the "Laity". The differences between men and women, made by God at creation are beautiful and designed by Him. It is defiance and rebellion by man (or rather mostly women) to want to redesign God's perfect design. I am delighted that Scriptural Truth has been declared in this vote and I now look forward to the battles over homosexuality. The Word of God is living and powerful and sharper than a two edged sword. Glory to Him. Amen

21 November 2012 at 08:18  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo, seems you are becoming confused. I am not the jewish
communicant here. Neither is my humour.

Please do not provoke Carl again. I do not wish to be subjected to his white hot (lol) rage so soon after his last pitiable attempt at expressing some form of human emotion.Besides I need to time to resharpen my shears...so many haircuts, so little time!

21 November 2012 at 08:24  
Blogger William said...

It will be interesting to see what parliament will do with this.

Ben Bradshaw, a former Labour minister, said: “This means the Church is being held hostage by an unholy and unrepresentative alliance of conservative evangelicals and conservative Catholics."

We are blessed that the wisdom of Ben Bradshaw is able to show us what is holy and what is not.

Also

The Rev Canon Robert Cotton said: “We have made David Cameron’s job getting gay marriage through much easier — why should he take the Church of England seriously when it seems interested only in looking after its own?”

Except that David Cameron has no intention of taking the CoE seriously full-stop. And ANYWAY good reverend, you should be voting on female bishops based on whether it is right, NOT on how you believe the government may react on another issue.

21 November 2012 at 08:49  
Blogger William said...

If the government does decide to impose equality legislation on the CoE then we will know exactly where we will stand should SSM come to pass - if we didn't already.

21 November 2012 at 09:08  
Blogger John Henson said...

Naomi King said...

I thank God for the "Laity".


Good. So perhaps there should now be a referendum of everyone whose name is on the electoral roll of a church to reveal what the wish of "the laity" truly is.

21 November 2012 at 09:35  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Scarlet de Borgia sings strictly solo.. Not even with the fine counter tenor Dodo.

Neither of us would ever dream of singing Ernst Blofart's theme song
" I will not pass this wind again"
That will always be your signature tune Ernst.

21 November 2012 at 09:38  
Blogger chorale said...

Way of the dodo says,
"In words it is impossible to explain the Trinity and many brilliant, inspired minds have tried. How can we possibly put into language the nature of God?"

Properly to explain the Trinity, one needs to leave the language of theology and enter the world of the supermarket. There are on a shelf three brands of the same product - beans if you like - and attached is a notice which says "Buy any one of these and you get the other two free"

Chris Baker - Durham UK

No, I'm not being serious . . .

21 November 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

>>>>>Ben Bradshaw, a former Labour minister, said: “This means the Church is being held hostage by an unholy and unrepresentative alliance of conservative evangelicals and conservative Catholics."<<<<

May I be allowed to reserve judgment on the views of a homosexual communist on holiness.

As I recall, Bradshaw was an enthusiastic member of the Blair/Brown regime who advanced a grossly anti-Christian, anti-family, pro-mass Islamic immigration agenda, bankrupted the country with unrepayable borrowing to fund entitlement spending to buy votes, and took us into an illegal war which cost anywhere between a quarter million and 2 million lives, plus much ethnic cleansing of Middle Easetern Christians. Unholy, Mr Bradshaw?

The language is already getting nasty, I heard one of the lady 'priests' on radio 4 last night accuse an opponent of 'institutional sexism'.

Maybe its time to disestablish the C of E. 2013 is going to be interesting.

21 November 2012 at 10:02  
Blogger Jon said...

Naomi King - 1 Timothy 2 v 12.

Do shut up, dear!

21 November 2012 at 11:02  
Blogger Johnzh said...

That's in the church not on this blog.

21 November 2012 at 11:27  
Blogger John Magee said...

Naomi King

Bravo!

21 November 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

His Grace retweeted;
Peter Tatchell ‏@PeterTatchell

Tories used to be nasty party. Church of England is now nasty church. Bans women bishops & wants to ban same-sex civil marriage #Synod #lgbt

Tatchell. The master of tarring everybody as bigots who disagree but when what he requires is granted, acts as the great magnanimous voice of reason and sympathy (See what he said after a Christian won the case to hold traditional views on marriage), when what he has got leads to natural consequences for others who disagreed. A perfect hypocrite.

Blofeld

21 November 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A lady bishop marries a strapping vicar, half her age. On the wedding night, she walks into the bedroom and finds him praying at the foot of the bed. “What ARE you doing” she says. ”Well your grace, all this is new to me, so I was praying for guidance”. She puts a hand on his shoulder and says. “You pray for stamina, son, I’ll guide you in”




21 November 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressida
"Besides I need to time to resharpen my shears...so many haircuts, so little time!"

I am forbidden to discuss haircuts for fear of reprisals.

As for Ernsty, I agree with your dsignature tune for him.

However, I have another song that might serve too.

Yes, how many years can Ernsty exist
Before he's falls to his the knees?
Yes, how many years can some he exist
Before he sets himself free?
Yes, how many times can Ernsty turn his head
Pretending he just doesn't see?

The answer my friend is blowin' in his wind
The answer is blowin' in his wind.

Yes, how many times must Ernsty look up
Before he sees the sky?
Yes, how many ears must Ernsty have
Before he hears the Spirit cry?
Yes, how many years will it take till he knows
That too many people still lie?

The answer my friend is blowin' in his wind
The answer is blowin' in his wind.

21 November 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger Kinderling said...

"If the Body of Christ is to reflect the family with the male as the head, what of the gifted and smarter and more intellegent women to do?"

To do what they are gifted to do.

"But in the role of Teacher for the teachings of Jesus...."

From a sociological point of view or a psychologial point of view?

"Why a psychological point of view?"

Jesus was a man.

...

"So the "Body of Christ" has nothing to do with Jesus?"

Nothing whatsoever. It is a commune of people.

Being a male-priest is one deception and being a female-priest is an even further deception. Of the lesser of two evils, there is a slim chance Jesus' meanings slip out with the former.

You don't find The-Father-within-you, in church.

"A woman can be a priest?"

A noble man would not be a called priest, so why would a noble woman?

"So you don't want women priests because its all a fraud?"

No one will find consciousness when Jesus is the Fettish that no husband can live up to.

"Hell on Earth"

Communism: The Anti-Father rage.

"So a church should reflect the people, their creation, should reflect the family etc?"

That is why no man has a woman as his head. None. His kingdom is not of this world while hers is. He will lead her out of this attachment as only as far as it is healthy. He does not rob her of what she loves.

Can't she lead him out?

No. She just doesn't 'put out'. He has to find salvation for himself.

Won't she find herself?

Does she have to, really? Everything is made for her. The World seduces.

"But young men are now becoming like tattooed rat-men..."

They have to be led out too.

So we're back to women priests?

Yes.

22 November 2012 at 00:46  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Excellent lyrics Dodo. Ernsty will love this.He can sing it while he is sitting on his commode.

Ernsty never thought in his wildest dreams that he could ever meet TWO people like us.... the reason why he thinks we are the same person is because if you are very lucky you only get ONE of us in a lifetime:)

22 November 2012 at 03:57  
Blogger OldJim said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 November 2012 at 10:38  
Blogger OldJim said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 November 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger OldJim said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 November 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger OldJim said...

Mr Keningley, Ernst and Dodo

Strong meat indeed.

"I remain unconvinced by “begotten” for the Son and “proceeding” for the Spirit, as I worry that if they mean that the Father communicates the divine essence to the Son (and similarly the Father and Son to the Spirit) then how does that avoid making the Son and Spirit creatures?"

Because it is the Divine Essence, which is uncreated, that is communicated, and communicated eternally. They are not "created" with some new, subordinate Essence, nor are they "created" in the sense of "brought into existence and then given autonomy". Their essence is uncreated Godhead and it is eternally communicated to Them.

The rarified nature of this discussion is always going to mean that it's easier to talk of heresies avoided than absolute truths(tm) upheld.

So, in this context, the heresies to be avoided are on the one hand Platonist Emanationism and on the other "mere creation" proper.

Th Church Fathers (with the exception of the notorious Origen) took a very dim view of Emanationism - the idea that God was compelled by His very Nature to create or (as Father) even beget anything. He created and begot voluntarily and out of Divine Love.

On the other hand, they were insistent that all of the Members of the Trinity were fully God - one in essence and Godhead. They were not created by the Father but were of him in some way.

Provided, therefore, that we avoid the Scylla of emanationism and the Charybdis of creation, we're probably OK. Precision beyond this is very difficult for obvious reasons.


You also speak of the communication of the Divine Essence to the Spirit by both Father and Son - it's important to be very careful with wording here. The east has always laid emphasis on the Monarchy (or more properly the Monarche) of the Father. This is simply the view that the Father-as-Person is source of all Deity and Divinity, and is quite consonant with patristic Orthodoxy. The west on the other hand has tended to emphasise the consubstantiality of the Trinity, with a consequent emphasis on Substance rather than Persons. With the pressing need to refute the Arian heresy, this became ever more prevalent, and the Athanasian Creed and the filioque became a very good litmus test for establishing Orthodoxy - Arians could not affirm the consubstantiality of Father and Son, and so they could not in good conscience affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both.


However, when we say "proceeds from both" we should be quite clear that we cannot mean double procession or spiration. There is nothing in the Son's Person that is contributed to the Spirit that is not also in the Father. There is no double origin. It might well be better, then, to talk of "proceeds from the Father through the Son"

On the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox emphasis is often hijacked by a Photian Theology that denies anything but a merely temporal procession through the Son. This does risk denying proper and full equality and consubstantiality of the Persons, because the Father becomes not merely Source of all Divinity as Person, but also as Substance...

So you see, I think the emphases are complementary Person/Substance understandings - it is just that the west sometimes ends up talking as though there were an heretical double spiration and the east as though there were an heretical subordinationist generation from the Father's Substance-as-Arche alone. Whilst the aforementioned emphases are compatible, these novel teachings are mutually inimical. If they could be properly condemned we'd be a lot closer to entering back into communion.

22 November 2012 at 10:49  
Blogger OldJim said...

Oh, darn, I was going to have a lot of fun there...

When you read "On the other hand, they were insistent"

add "(with the exception of the notorious Origen)"

poor man, I've charged him with two errors that I've set in contradiction! :)

22 November 2012 at 16:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Old Jim

The problems always arise when we add more than what is revealed by scripture of the nature and authority of God and go off 'an imagining' as Origen and his followers did.

Each member of the God-Head speaks of the others as God when stating their thoughts to mankind and each has played a part in the activities of creation and the salvation of men as revealed by the prophets etc!!

We can no more know more about Him by musing about things not disclosed than we can about heaven and eternity, as they are beyond our dimension and knowledge of comprehension!

He tries to use language and concepts so that we may catch a glimpse of what He is, though we will comprehend it fully when we are transformed/glorified into His likeness,

Only by entering into where He is, can we know the true reality that awaits us.

Ernst

ps

I do wish you rc boys would use the English Biblical conceptual language to express about what was discussed (Now wouldn't that be nice?), rather than revert to the rambling language of long winded dead RC Theologians/Philosphers such as Augustine, Aquinas, Kant and some Comte, Plato and Aristotle through in for good measure!!!,
You appear to have a strange mixture of Thomism (Does apriorism overtake aposteriorism..blah blah blah *Yawn*)

Mysterion in Ephesians, in the Greek text, means a 'secret revealed' by the one withholding the secret, not something we can prove with rational reasoning, hence we only know what we know of God from His revealing!!

24 November 2012 at 02:46  
Blogger len said...

Cressida... come clean now ....you are a' Dodo clone'.

I think everyone has arrived by that conclusion by now....

If (perchance) I am wrong (I have been once before) then come out with an 'original statement'not agreeing with Dodo or the Inspector for once?.

24 November 2012 at 11:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

... but len, you wouldn't spot an orginal statement!

I mean you can't detect the gaps in the beliefs of Cressida, the Inspector and myself.

Here's an original statement:

Original statements about God have one of two sources.

(e.g. St. Paul met Lucifer on the road to Damacus, not Christ; St. Paul was in a near-death state when he met Christ; Jesus was not equally God and man.)

25 November 2012 at 02:11  
Blogger len said...

Dodo you answered for Cressida?

I think you just gave the game away!.

25 November 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

You libelled me (again) and I am entitled to a right of reply.

25 November 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger len said...

It would be interesting to see Dodo and Cressida appear together?.

But we know that won`t happen don`t we?.

28 November 2012 at 08:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Len

Dodo has said repeatedly that he doesn't post as anyone else, so why not just accept that? It is pointless and silly all of this endless discussion on who people are or are not. And no I am neither of the people you mention either.

28 November 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger Lord AnonymousInBelfast said...

Hi Len,

I am all of them. And you can too.

28 November 2012 at 21:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older