(Ed: Weird to see Stephen Bates picking up my comment on Thinking Anglicans yesterday. Must have been desperate for a quote!)
One of the Church of England's most distinguished theological training colleges has been placed on notice that it must improve its academic standards and not succumb to narrow conservative evangelicalism if it is to remain part of Oxford University. Wycliffe Hall, at the centre of a dispute between some staff and its hardline evangelical principal, has been told by the university that it must maintain the values of a liberal education and will be monitored to ensure it does. Complaints of homophobia and misogyny have been levelled at Wycliffe's leadership.
An internal report, drawn up by senior Oxford academics and accepted by the university's governing council, will warn the 130-year-old college of concern about the narrowness of its theological teaching and doubts about whether it is offering students full intellectual development. Read more
4 comments:
The trouble with this article is that it is basically 'Turnbull bashing', with a dollop of spin and inaccuracy thrown in.
Take this statement: "Dr Turnbull admits he has appointed a deputy who opposes women's ordination or leadership."
The phrase 'admits' implies some kind of guilt. Yet the Church of England's position, declared in 1993, is that it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with the ordination of women and that this must present no barrier to any office. What Stephen Bates is reporting is that the bodies of the Church continue to honour that position - which is only news insofar as we know from the Pilling report that this is unusual.
Again, Stephen Bates alleges that ins a video of a speech, Dr Turnbull suggested that "95% per cent of the population were going to hell unless they converted to conservative evangelicalism." No, he said they were in danger of hell without hearing about Jesus.
Finally, one might ask (of both Stephen Bates and the report's compilers) why a Conservative Evangelical stance is such a threat. Is it somehow a less 'worthy' viewpoint than theological Liberalism? Are Conservative Evangelicals less inclined to read or think than Liberals?
Personally, when I was at Moore Theological College in the 1990s, I would have happenly taken most of their graduates and matched them against any candidate of comparable background from any English institution, including Oxbridge. What was more remarkable was that on top of their academic ability, they maintained a radical commitment to the cause of Christ.
That is what a theological college should be aiming to produce, and frankly, if the time has come for the parting of the ways from English academia, then so be it.
Isn't this a tad disingenuous, John?
"Yet the Church of England's position, declared in 1993, is that it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with the ordination of women and that this must present no barrier to any office."
Wasn't the CoE talking about the ordained ministry and posts within the church - that a properly qualified minister should not be refused an appointment solely on the grounds of his opposition to the ordination of women?
But Wycliffe Hall is not the church in the same way as the parish church down the road is and anyone who is appointed to the office of Vice-Principal of a theological training college is surely in a sufficently powerful position to ensure that women ordinands are made to feel uncomfortable so that, over time, there are less of them. Doubly so in Simon Vibert's case since he is also to be Director of the School of Preaching - how will this play, one wonders, with women ordinands, having as Director a man who does not believe they should be in the pulpit?
If those who are opposed to the ordination of women are to suffer no adverse consequences from those who support it and have power to deny appointments or otherwise derail careers, then it seems reasonable to ask the same in return - that women who wish to be ordained and their supporters should suffer no adverse consequences from those with the power to bring about adverse consequences who oppose it.
I doubt whether it is possible to have the entirely level playing field that we were promised in 1993 - indeed subsequent events have proven this to be the case. However, Stephen Bates presents Richard Turnbull's choice of Simon Vibert as though it were something underhand or about which one should be embarrassed.
It is not. It remains a valid position for Anglicans. We must therefore allow that people will be appointed to positions where they indeed have influence over others who hold the other view, whilst those others will have to work under them. This may be uncomfortable, but it is nothing to be ashamed of.
I notice that one of the complaints levelled against Wycliffe is 'lack of experience of the wider Church'. I'm rather inclined to say that here might be a useful experience - which is not often made available in the 'wider' Church.
The majority if the CofE has accepted women ministers. It would be inappropriate for a college to move in the opposite direction and do what Fern fears. There is no evidence that this is the case. The rxpression of this view continues to be part of the ongoing debate in the church. The affront to the liberal values and free speech which Mr Bates and the Univerity espose by not allowing anyone with these views to be appointed is indeed ironic.
I note that Richard Turnbull address to Reform continues to be misreported and taken out of context. Pt bluntly he was telling the church to get of it's repective backsides and tell people about Jesus and that we need give financial support to the theiological collages if we want and able and effective leadership.
David Hey
West Yorkshire
Post a Comment