[...]'For me, this never started out as a battle between conservatives and open evangelicals. For me, this was trying to draw attention to the fact that we were unhappy with the style of management at Wycliffe Hall. But as time evolved, it started to feel more theological.
'I am alarmed at the way big walls between people and groups have started to emerge in the way they did not before. People had nuances and differences, but we all worked well together. From the Fulcrum point of view [Elaine is chairman of Fulcrum], it is not what we are wanting. We want to work with everybody rather than create a new camp.
'I am alarmed at the belligerence of the conservative camp, where they are seemingly going out of their way to make life as difficult as possible for the Archbishop of Canterbury. I cannot imagine what the reasons are. They are being destructive rather than constructive, finding something to argue about rather than working together to find a fruitful outcome.
'I am bewildered as to why anyone would want to spend their energy doing this when there is a world out there we should be speaking to of the love of God. And we should not just be speaking it, we should be living it, first of all, in the way we love one another, and also in the way we love them.
'What is the point of going out and trying to find heretics, so we can shoot them down? It seems so unloving and so unproductive. I cannot figure it out.
'Never before in the history of the evangelical church have we had so many evangelicals and of such talent. The whole way we could pull together with other people and other traditions of the church, it could be fantastic. But rather than do that, we end up squabbling. It is appalling. It is ridiculous. There is no victory there. It is just daft.' Read more
No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
Elaine Storkey: Evangelical squabbling is 'just daft'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I can't help looking at the comment, "From the Fulcrum point of view ... it [hardened divisions] is not what we are wanting. We want to work with everybody rather than create a new camp", and asking, "So why was Fulcrum set up following some 'behind the scenes' meeting and launched in a mini-blaze of publicity at the last NEAC? Was it aiming to achieve greater unity or clearer demarcation? And what have been the results?" Just a thought.
The official story is at http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=137
The main reasons seem to be:
1. Oposition to unwarrented criticism of Rowan Williams.
2. A percieved hardening of attitudes post NEAC 3 includung a hostility to hermaneutics.
3. To show that Reform and Christian Institute did not represent the view a all evangelicals.
The articles on the site have:
1. Supported the Windsor report / process and looked for a basis of contituing Anglican unity.
2. Supported the official position on homosexuality i.e. Lmbeth 1.10 and sought to engage in constructive dialogue on this basis thilst rejecting any unbiblical homophobia.
3. There is a remarkable series of articles by Oliver O'Donovan and also several interestong pieces by David Atkinson and Thom Smail amongst others.
The theological positions on headship and atomement, which I suspect you disagree with are ably defended in articles by Tom Wright.
Some of the posters do not self identify as evangelical, of any sort. The forum is a discussion not a policy statement.
David Hey
West Yorkshire
Thanks David. I really ought to be getting on with other stuff, but one thing caught my eye: the statement that the criticism of Rowan Willams was 'unwarranted'. The link took me over to Graham Kings's article and his comment, representing the 'Fulcrum' position, quoted by Ruth Gledhill: "The central areas of Christian belief include the Trinity and the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. Rowan Williams is thoroughly orthodox in all of these."
To this, I can only say, pantomime fashion, "Oh no, he isn't." (Much as I do admire the man's intellect and integrity.) I would refer to articles I did in New Directions at the following links (the ghastly background colours are nothing to do with me):
Theology 'in the dark'
http://trushare.com/93FEB03/FE03RICH.htm
Theology at the boundary
http://trushare.com/94Mar03/MR03RICH.htm
Open to Question
http://trushare.com/95APR03/AP03RICH.htm
One of my conclusions upon reading his work is that "Rowan Williams’ theology is ... the theology of Rowan Williams" - in other words, it is peculiar to him, which is one of the reasons why many Liberals think he has 'betrayed' them. I would argue that, on the contrary, he has been (almost) entirely consistent with his own theology of salvation in the way he has approached the problems of the Anglican Communion, but that very few people (taking global Anglicanism as a whole) share or understand this theology.
I do not feel, however, that these views could be described as 'thoroughly orthodox', and therefore feel remarks like that of Graham Kings at the time fell into the category I also mentioned in my articles: "the publication of Garry Williams’ negative evaluation of Rowan Williams’ theology was greeted with open hostility, not because it could readily be refuted, but because such criticisms of the Archbishop are seen as somehow ‘wrong’" - in other words, the defense was instinctive against the attack, not reasoned with the theology, and had more to do with existing hostilities with Evangelicalism (in this particular case) than with a truly shared theological perspective between Evangelicalism and the theology of Rowan Williams.
PS, for what it's worth, I think Tom Wright's comments on 'headship' (at least, here: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/docs.cfm?fname=20060721kasper&format=pdf&option=inline) are tendentious, and his argument from Mary Magdalene to female 'apostleship' is extraordinary (but not in a good way). That's just me, though.
PPS for a more detailed analysis of the Open/Conservative divide, I blogged here a while ago.
Post a Comment