Andrew Goddard writes: I was rather shocked a couple of years ago when I spotted in my Twitter feed the following tweet from the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Today we mark the Feast of the #Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Like Mary, let each of us say our yes to God’s call and trust the boundless love of Jesus Christ.
It was a tweet alongside a video of his trip to Walsingham for its national pilgrimage back in May. I later discovered that this was the second tweet of the day on the subject from the Archbishop and that four hours earlier the video had been tweeted and we had been informed:
It was joyful to be at the national pilgrimage to @ShrineOLW earlier this summer. As we celebrate the #Assumption of Mary today, I pray that the example of the mother of God will draw us to Jesus afresh.
So two tweets on the same day making the same point. What was I to assume (pun intended)? I have to confess that my initial thought—given the reference to Mary saying yes to God’s call—was that the Archbishop’s twitter account must be run by a young intern who had confused the assumption with the annunciation (the biblically recorded account of Gabriel announcing she would bear Jesus, Lk 1.26–38). Or perhaps it was a recognition that many Anglicans do believe in the assumption and mark it alongside Christians of other denominations? Or was it simply a desire to highlight his recent Walsingham visit on an appropriate day in the church’s calendar but which was then inappropriately named? (August 15th is in Common Worship—but not the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, 1928 Proposed Prayer Book, or 1980 Alternative Service Book—a festival in which Anglicans celebrate the Blessed Virgin Mary).
Apart from the reference to the assumption, the verbal content of the tweets is excellent and uncontentious: Christ-centred exhortation based on the example of Mary who, because of his orthodox Christology, Archbishop Justin rightly calls “the mother of God” (theotokos). This fits with his pattern of focussing on Christ and with the theme of the Walsingham Festival this year, “Do whatever he tells you” (Mary’s words at the Cana wedding in John 2.5). As he says in the video “It’s about allowing Mary to point us to Jesus and that is for me the centre of this pilgrimage”.
But the basis on which these exhortations are made is surprising: that “we” were on that day “marking” or “celebrating” the “Feast of the Assumption”. To clarify the multiple problems it is helpful to explore three questions:
- What is the Assumption?
- Does the Church of England mark it?
- Should we be believe it and mark it?
The Assumption of Mary
The assumption of Mary refers to a belief concerning how she departed her life on earth. About this, Scripture is silent—we last see her at the start of Acts waiting for the Spirit. As late as the fourth century there was no clear church teaching about the end of her life but shortly after the Council of Ephesus in 431, the first Council to deal explicitly with Mary, this began to change. The Council, on the basis of teaching about Christ as truly God, favoured Cyril and theotokos (God-bearer) over Nestorius and Christotokos as a designation for Mary. Following this, various accounts concerning what happened to Mary began to gain prominent circulation and the event began to be marked by Christians. The “assumption” refers to the belief that Mary’s soul and body were reunited and taken to be with Christ in heaven. In the words of the 2004 Anglican-Roman Catholic (ARCIC) statement on Mary:
The feast of Mary’s ‘falling asleep’ dates from the end of the sixth century, but was influenced by legendary narratives of the end of Mary’s life already widely in circulation. In the West, the most influential of them are the Transitus Mariae. In the East the feast was known as the ‘dormition’, which implied her death but did not exclude her being taken into heaven. In the West the term used was ‘assumption’, which emphasized her being taken into heaven but did not exclude the possibility of her dying. Belief in her assumption was grounded in the promise of the resurrection of the dead and the recognition of Mary’s dignity as Theotókos and ‘Ever Virgin’, coupled with the conviction that she who had borne Life should be associated to her Son’s victory over death, and with the glorification of his Body, the Church (para 40).
This belief continued to be important in much popular piety and in formal celebrations. Tim Perry in his excellent Mary for Evangelicals (IVP, 2006, see also his The Blessed Virgin Mary with Daniel Kendall, SJ) notes that “By the eighth century, the assumption was widely and popularly believed, even if not officially approved” (p 240). Although the Reformation is usually seen as rejecting much of the church’s belief and practice in relation to Mary, the reality was slightly more complex. Many leading Reformers, for example, held not just to the biblically authorised doctrine of the virgin conception of Christ but to her perpetual virginity. Zwingli kept the Marian festivals, including the Assumption, in the city of Zurich. In this continued acceptance of the assumption, however, he was unusual, and most Anglicans rejected the assumption or held it as adiaphora. Paul Williams in his study of Mary in the Anglican tradition (in Mary: The Complete Resource edited by Tina Beattie and Sarah Jane Boss, here at p251) notes Tyndale (1494–1536) was particularly vehement:
Of what text thou provest hell, will another prove purgatory; another limbo patrum; and another the assumption of our lady: and another shall prove of the same text that an ape hath a tail….
As pertaining to our lady’s body, where it is, or where the body of Elias, of John the evangelist, and many other be, pertaineth not to us to know. One thing we are sure of, that they are where God hath laid them. If they are in hyevaen, we have never the more in Christ: if they be not there, we have never the less … as for me, I commit all such matters unto those idle bellies, which have nought else to do than to move such questions; and give them free liberty to hold what they list, as long as it hurteth not he faith, whether it be so or no:…
He also cites Whitaker (1548–95) who commented:
The papists celebrate the feast of the assumption of the blessed virgin Mary with the utmost honour, and the Rhemists in their notes on Acts 1 praise this custom exceedingly: yet Jerome, in his book to Paula and Eustochium, concerning the assumption of the blessed virgin, says that ‘what is told about the translation of her body is apocryphal’…
The place of the assumption of Mary thus marked a clear difference between Protestant (including Anglican) and Roman Catholic theology, liturgy and piety. The growth in Marian visions from the mid-19th century onwards gave added support for many Catholics to the belief of Mary’s assumption and pressure grew for it to become formal church teaching. Mary was particularly important in the spirituality and teaching of Pope Pius XII and in November 1950 in Munificentissimus Deus he officially defined the dogma (para 44):
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
The following paragraph added:
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
It is therefore unsurprising that the 1981 ARCIC report Authority in the Church II stated:
The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption raise a special problem for those Anglicans who do not consider that the precise definitions given by these dogmas are sufficiently supported by Scripture. For many Anglicans the teaching authority of the bishop of Rome, independent of a council, is not recommended by the fact that through it these Marian doctrines were proclaimed as dogmas binding on all the faithful. Anglicans would also ask whether, in any future union between our two Churches, they would be required to subscribe to such dogmatic statements (para. 30).
Do Anglicans mark the Assumption?
The tweets say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is joining with others (“We”) to “mark the Feast of the #Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary” and “celebrate the #Assumption of Mary today”. The problem is that there is no such marking or celebration within the Church of England and there has not been for 470 years.
August 15th is, since Common Worship, a festival in which we remember the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is also the day in which the Roman Catholic Church has the solemnity of the Assumption and the Orthodox Church marks the Dormition. This has, however, never in the post-Reformation Church of England been a celebration or marking of the assumption and in fact the festival may be celebrated on September 8th instead (when the church traditionally marks the birth of Mary).
As we have seen, Anglicans and other churches of the Reformation had significant problems with aspects of Marian piety and teaching, in particular the assumption. These theological disagreements led to changes in Anglican liturgy where in 1549 and 1552 the Calendar initially removed all Marian feasts except the Annunciation and Purification (both events mentioned in the gospels). This only changed in 1561 when, in the words of Colin Podmore, speaking at Walsingham on Mary and the Anglican Tradition:
The Calendar of 1561 is of crucial importance because it saw the return, after those brief breaks that I mentioned, of three of the Marian feasts. From 1561 onwards the Church of England again marked Our Lady’s Conception on 8 December, her Nativity on 8 September, and the Visitation on 2 July. Only the Assumption remained excluded. (Italics added).
Paul Williams similarly notes in his account of the 1561 changes that “the conspicuous continuing omission is the Assumption, which disappeared from Anglican worship in 1549”. He then adds “only partially to return in some twentieth century Anglican calendars”.
I am unclear whether any Anglican calendars actually formally celebrate the assumption on this day (I’d be surprised but am willing to be proved wrong). The connections made to it liturgically clearly vary in different provinces. Indeed, on careful scrutiny, I discovered (to my surprise) that the Church of England’s own liturgy goes quite some way to help those Anglicans who do believe in the assumption in the way it frames the liturgy for August 15th.
The Church of England collect could be read as affirming a special glorious place in heaven at present to Mary. However, it need not be read as such particularly in the light of other prayers referring to the departed in Church of England liturgy (on which more generally see here) in which we pray “according to your promises, grant us with them a share in your eternal kingdom”:
Almighty God, who didst look upon the lowliness of the Blessed Virgin Mary and didst choose her to be the mother of thy only Son: grant that we who are redeemed by his blood may share with her in the glory of thine eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.
The set readings similarly include some passages which have been traditionally read in support of the assumption, several of which are used in the Roman Catholic Lectionary on August 15th:
- Psalm 132 is the Psalm for the Second Service. Its verse 8—“‘Arise, Lord, and come to your resting place, you and the ark of your might”—was often cited in Christian tradition with the ark as a type of Mary in defences of the assumption of Mary to be with her ascended son.
- Psalm 45:10–17 is the Psalm for the Principal Service. This has been read as, in the words of Pius XII in his encyclical pronouncing the dogma, describing Mary “as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer”.
- The Old Testament reading of Isaiah 61.10, 11 also could take on new meanings in the context of belief in the assumption: “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels”.
- Combined with the above texts and figural/typological hermeneutic, the New Testament lesson of Revelation 11.19–12.6, 10 opening with “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant” would be seen as further confirmation of Mary’s heavenly presence, now alongside “her child…snatched up to God and to his throne”.
- Although Song of Solomon 2.1–7 (for the Second Service) is not as prominent as other texts from the Song in traditional attempts to defend the doctrine from Scripture (the 1950 papal encyclical refers to 3.6, 4.8 and 6.9) one can see that the words “Let him lead me to the banquet hall, and let his banner over me be love” could also easily take on new meanings once read with the woman of the Song as a type of Mary if one believes the assumption.
The Episcopal Church in the US also remembers Mary (simply as Saint Mary the Virgin: Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ) on August 15th and although it too does not speak of “the Feast of the Assumption” its collect (also used in the Scottish Episcopal Church (p 37) and in the new ACNA BCP) points even more strongly to Mary’s assumption than that in the Church of England:
O God, you have taken to yourself the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of your incarnate Son: Grant that we, who have been redeemed by his blood, may share with her the glory of your eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
In short, despite the Archbishop’s tweets and a certain amount of careful ambiguity in liturgical wording and selection of readings, “we” in the Church of England do not have a Feast of the Assumption and have not had since 1549. That is because we do not believe in the doctrine of the Assumption.
Should we believe in the Assumption?
It is beyond question that a number of Anglicans do believe in the Assumption of Mary, perhaps even in the form expressed in the 1950 encyclical. This has been true not just of more catholic Anglicans such as E.L. Mascall but even of those who might be viewed as more liberal theologically such as John Macquarrie who gave a detailed biographical account (in his Mary for All Christians (T&T Clark, 2001 (2nd edn), pp. 82–96) of his journey to the place where “I have come to see the dogma of the Assumption as the expression in appropriate theological symbols of some of the most hopeful affirmations of the Christian faith”. Evangelical New Testament scholar, John Wenham, could also say at a Mariological conference at Walsingham, in a paper then published by Churchman in 1972:
Finally, I see Mary as our forerunner in heaven. I cannot quite accept the dogma of the Assumption as promulgated in 1950, but I can very nearly. I do not think that there is evidence that her earthly body saw no corruption—I find it very difficult to believe that she suddenly disappeared and that this amazing miracle was not widely known in the Early Church—but I do believe that clothed in her spiritual body, she in her full humanity was taken into heaven.
However, as already noted, the Church of England since the Reformation have never formally accepted the assumption of Mary and this has been one of the major divides with Rome (and, in some importantly different ways, with Eastern Orthodox belief). In an attempt to address this, in 2004 ARCIC produced a report on Mary and the Marian dogmas which concluded
that the teaching about Mary in the two definitions of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, understood within the biblical pattern of the economy of hope and grace, can be said to be consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures and the ancient common traditions (paragraph 60).
This was just one of a number of controversial claimed agreements in the document. It is important that, in the ARCIC report’s own words, “It is not an authoritative declaration by the Roman Catholic Church or by the Anglican Communion”. In fact, the Church of England’s Faith and Order Advisory Group produced a helpful set of rather critical papers in 2008 including ones from an evangelical perspective by Martin Davie (pp 49–65 and also in Anvil) and David Hilborn (pp 84–90). In February 2011, General Synod passed the following very cautious motion from the Council for Christian Unity and rejected an amendment explicitly welcoming the report:
That this Synod, affirming the aim of Anglican–Roman Catholic theological dialogue “to discover each other’s faith as it is today and to appeal to history only for enlightenment, not as a way of perpetuating past controversy” (Preface to The Final Report, 1982), and in the light of recent steps towards setting up ARCIC III:
(i) note the theological assessment of the ARCIC report Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ in the FOAG briefing paper GS 1818 as a contribution to further dialogue;
(ii) welcome exploration of how far Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a common faith and spirituality, based on the Scriptures and the early Ecumenical Councils, with regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary;
(iii) request that, in the context of the quest for closer unity between our two communions, further joint study of the issues identified in GS 1818 be undertaken – in particular, the question of the authority and status of the Roman Catholic dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary for Anglicans; and
(iv) encourage Anglicans to study the report with ecumenical colleagues and in particular, wherever possible, with their Roman Catholic neighbours.
It therefore cannot be claimed that following the ARCIC Report the Church of England has accepted the doctrine of the assumption.
For evangelicals there is certainly the need for a rediscovery of Mary’s importance after often over-reacting against the place she is given in Catholic teaching and piety. There are signs of this happening as in Timothy George’s 2007 article, Tim Perry’s book and the 2009 Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) statement on Mary taking the same title as the Walsingham Festival this year. As Perry writes, “we can and should affirm the role of God’s grace throughout Mary’s life, so that, as a result of such grace, she is indeed an example to believers and that her example precisely is her grace-enabled perseverance” (p. 285). However, that sentence from Perry begins “While immaculate conception and bodily assumption are notions closed to traditional Protestants…” and, as Davie and Hilborn point out, there are good reasons why this is so and should remain the case. Even if evangelicals need to recover a proper place for Mary in their theology, that place needs to be biblically and theologically defensible and so cannot embrace Mary’s assumption into heaven as part of the teaching of the church.
Hilborn sums up the three classic evangelical objections to the Roman Catholic teaching on the assumption: the lack of biblical authority (as illustrated above, the claimed biblical support depends on peculiar readings of particular texts into which belief in the assumption is read); its relatively late doctrinal development; and its detraction from a focus on Christ.
Davie looks at alleged biblical precedents for Mary’s assumption (as opposed to the typological and figural readings noted above) such as Elijah or Enoch but then notes that
there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that what happened to these two individuals provides a precedent for the fate of either Mary or any other Christian believer. In the New Testament the only person who enters into glory in body and soul prior to the final resurrection of the dead is Christ Himself and there is no suggestion that this will be true of anyone else… there is no general biblical pattern of especially godly people being assumed body and soul into heaven that could then apply to Mary: in the Bible itself what happened to Enoch and Elijah is seen as exceptional rather than normative.
He also highlights that while it is true that believers have been with raised with Christ already, “we shall only experience this fully at the end of time. (Rom. 8:18–25; 2 Cor. 5:1–5) and so we distort the biblical pattern if we suggest that “in Mary at least this tension has already been overcome”. Even more seriously, there is the risk that in talking of Mary’s assumption we give to her “a role that in the New Testament belongs solely to Christ. In the New Testament it is Christ and not Mary or anyone else who foreshadows what will be when the new creation is revealed”.
As the ECT statement says, applying the Church of England’s Article 6, on the sufficiency of Scripture, to the assumption:
At one level, the doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption applies to Mary what the Bible declares to have happened to the prophets Enoch and Elijah—that she was taken into heaven, body and soul, at the end of her earthly life. In this way, Mary is believed to have anticipated what many Evangelicals refer to as the rapture of the Church at the return of Christ. Mary’s assumption presupposes a number of things that are indeed a part of our common Christian confession: the reality of heaven; the communion of saints; the overcoming of death; the resurrection of the flesh; the certain triumph of Jesus Christ over sin, hell, and the grave; belief in the literal, visible return of Christ in glory; the goodness of creation; and the unity of soul and body for all eternity. None of these biblical truths, however, requires belief in the bodily assumption of Mary, which is without biblical warrant (the vision of Revelation 12:1-6 says nothing about Mary’s body being taken into heaven) and has no basis in the early Christian tradition.
The apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950), in which Pope Pius XII promulgated the dogma of the assumption, does not take a position with respect to Mary’s death, yet this is a question of some theological importance. If Mary was taken to heaven without death in the manner of Enoch and Elijah, was this because her body was incorruptible and thus not subject to the fact that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23)? On the other hand, if she actually died (without having sinned) and then was raised from the dead to heavenly glory, then her resurrection would seem to be parallel to that of Christ who alone died and rose again for our justification (Rom. 4:24-25). Both opinions are present in the apocryphal writings that form the basis of later legends (such as Christ’s surrender of the heavenly kingdom to Mary at her coronation in glory), but it seems prudent to follow here the silence of the Scriptures and the reticence of the Church Fathers of the first three centuries.
In short, there is absolutely no biblical evidence for Mary’s assumption. The biblical truths that it is claimed to be consonant with and to bring to a focus are either truths which relate uniquely to Christ or to all believers. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the pattern and outcome of Mary’s departure from this life was any different from that of any other faithful follower of her son. To claim there is theological rationale for distinguishing her journey from ours is, furthermore, to make a biblically unwarranted distinction which risks detracting from the unique work of the Saviour she bore. It is through Jesus’ full humanity that our human nature has been redeemed and entered into glory and it is Jesus who in his person as truly God and truly human now intercedes for us at the Father’s right hand.
Conclusion
Predictably, responses on Twitter and elsewhere showed how divided Christians remain in relation to Mary. The Archbishop’s tweets and scenes in the video delighted some and enraged others. Some responses highlighted how Christians fail to engage with each other well or respect different traditions, something Archbishop Justin consistently challenges as he urges us to disagree well. Others, presuming he sends or approves all his tweets himself (which is often not the case for high profile figures), offered their own assessments of Archbishop Justin in the light of how they already viewed him. These too were not always charitable.
The first key question, however, is simply whether the tweets were right in what they said about the assumption. They are right if the “We” refers to “some Christians” rather than “We in the Church of England” or “We Anglicans” although the terminology favours the Roman Catholic West over the Orthodox East (it would have been better for one tweet to use “Assumption” and the next to speak of “Dormition” if that was the intention). But “we” in the Church of England (and the overwhelming majority, perhaps the whole, of the Anglican Communion) have no such Feast. We do not as a church believe in what the Feast marks in other parts of the church. In suggesting otherwise, the tweets therefore significantly misrepresented Anglican doctrine and practice.
The next question is whether any of this matters. In one sense this could all be dismissed as making a mountain of an article out of a molehill of a few words in a couple of tweets. But that is to forget the significance of what appears in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury, even on Twitter, if it touches on matters of theological controversy.
Another reason it matters is the deeper issue of different approaches to issues on which the church is divided. We cannot and should not deny that different traditions exist and that some of our divisions arise from doctrinal disagreements which are long-standing and significant. Attempts are, however, sometimes made to achieve greater Christian unity by going down that path but ultimately this undermines ecumenical endeavours. The ARCIC report on Mary failed to be received by the Church of England in large part because the Anglicans involved in it were not honest about the real differences, including on the assumption of Mary. It is therefore not surprising if some read the “We” in the tweets as suggesting that celebrating the Feast of the Assumption is part of the teaching and pattern of Church of England worship or implying such doctrinal disagreements are unreal, unsubstantial or unimportant. This understandably upsets and offends many faithful Anglicans, adding fuel to some of the already fiery disputes.
Unity among Anglicans and ecumenically is much better served by being clear about, explaining, and exploring our different beliefs and practices and then seeking to deepen mutual understanding and bonds of Christian love across our doctrinal divides. Ten years ago, Evangelicals and Catholics Together sought to follow this path in relation to Mary and their joint statement ends with these powerful words:
As brothers and sisters in Christ who are in lively communion with the saints on earth and the saints in heaven, we together pray—in words Richard John Neuhaus composed for us before he died:
Almighty and gracious God, Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who was in the fullness of time born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, from whom he received our human nature by which, through his suffering, death, and glorious resurrection, he won our salvation, accept, we beseech you, our giving thanks for the witness of Mary’s faith and the courage of her obedience.
Grant to us, we pray, the faithfulness to stand with her by the cross of your Son in his redemptive suffering and the suffering of your pilgrim Church on earth. By the gift of your Spirit, increase within us a lively sense of our communion in your Son with the saints on earth and the saints in heaven. May she who is the first disciple be for us a model of faith’s response to your will in all things; may her “Let it be with me according to your word” be our constant prayer; may her “Do whatever he tells you” elicit from us a more perfect surrender of obedience to her Lord and ours.
Continue to lead us, we pray, into a more manifest unity of faith and life so that the world may believe and those whom you have chosen may, with the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, rejoice forever in your glory. This we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and forever.
Amen.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC). This article was previously published in 2019.
Buy me a Coffee
The Anglican Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham is a high church Anglo Catholic Church of England church. So indeed some members of the Church of England clearly do celebrate the Assumption of Mary and the Archbishop was recognising that in his tweet. Nobody is forcing Protestant evangelicals within the C of E to celebrate it too
I’ve had clergy friends who go to Walsingham… but they were not comfortable with the stuff that went with it…
However “some members” doesn’t make it an Anglican Denominational belief. It’s just them. I do not think evangelicals feel forced at all to celebrate it…
No knickers in a twist here but “we” might be reasonably puzzled at the ABofC seeming to think it’s an Anglican festival. Mind you I tend to think twitter /x is not that helpful to the work.
Some rather dry observations about Walsingham here:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101994449
Surprisingly, Welby might simply be continuing his obsession with importing LGBT into the Church of England.
I recommend Erasmus’ satire inspired by his pilgrimage from Cambridge to Walsingham, referred to in passing in the above link. It is titled “A pilgrimage for religion’s sake” and appears on p285-312 of Craig R. Thompson’s translation from the Latin, The Colloquies of Erasmus (U Chicago Press).
By the mid 11th century the Turks had made pilgrimage to the Holy Land virtually impossible so it was necessary to bring the Holy Land to England (or Loreto),
High Church Anglo Catholicism does not automatically mean LGBT, indeed some conservative Anglo Catholics personally do not support PLF anymore than they supported ordination of women. Plus given it was Henry VIII who dismantled the original Roman Catholic shrine at the Reformation, even having a statue burnt in London, the C of E shrine somewhat atones for that too and recognises the Roman Catholic heritage of the pre 16th century national church standing as it does alongside the Roman Catholic church in Walsingham
You think atonement is necessary after burning a statue? Do you believe that England is Mary’s dowry?
“High Church Anglo Catholicism does not automatically mean LGBT”
Quite. See Bishop Martin Warner, Bishop Jonathan Baker, and Bishop Philip North for example.
For the avoidance of misunderstanding, I made no such claim.
Quite so, Simon. And there are Anglicans who are Freemasons. So Freemasonry is part of the Church of England, and indeed the Freemasons made a large donation to Canterbury Cathedral to hold a private service there a couple of years ago.
Nobody is forcing Protestant evangelicals within the C of E to celebrate it too. Those evangelicals who disagree with Freemasonry are free to leave the Church of England and join the Baptists and Pentecostal sects.
(I think this needs a ‘sarcasm alert’ sign on it)
Uptick
There are plenty of evangelicals who are Freemasons in my experience and almost every senior police officer who attends a C of E church will likely be a Freemason too. It is ironically the Roman Catholic church most opposed to Freemasonry, indeed the Vatican has long imposed a Papal ban on RCs being Freemasons
Your categories are like jelly. There are plenty of churchgoers who are freemasons, but they won’t be genuine evangelicals. Evanjellycals, perhaps.
Simon, we evidently move in different circles. Nearly all my adult life I have been in or led evangelical Anglican churches and I have never once knowingly met a Freemason – and I can detect a dodgy handshake in the peace, and spot a rolled up trouser leg at fifty paces.
I know the Feemasons are popular at Canterbury Cathedral but I doubt even you would call that place ‘evangelical’.
However, if it turns out that the King is a Freemason (as I suspect he is), that will be fine, because as you have said before, the King’s preferences determine the doctrine of the Established Church.
Charles has always loathed freemasonry; I suspect because it was rife among the courtiers.
Oh dear, I am bothered to discover I agree with Charles about something …
The Catholic scholar Eamon Duffy has stated that “there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for” Mary’s Assumption (What Catholics Believe About Mary, published by the Catholic Truth Society, 1989, p.17). For a scholarly summary of the earliest traditions and manuscripts about Mary’s fate, see Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption by Stephen J. Shoemaker (2003). The texts discussed by Shoemaker are the start of the tradition behind the ‘infallible’ declaration of 1950. Shoemaker’s more recent book Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion (2016) shows clearly that the origins of the cult of Mary lay in Gnosticism: she is said to have been given esoteric salvific knowledge by Christ.
Thanks—very helpful.
So she disappeared like Yoda? ok
You mean, “Disappeared she did like Yoda so?”
Understood I never did how the smartest creature in the universe could live to 900 and not learn standard English word order.
but different universe it was, so…
but reminds me of Capote to Sellers in Murder by Death about his non use of prepositions and articles. Hilarious it was.
Not a different universe, just a galaxy far far away…
Andrew, I disagree that Welby is right to call Mary the theotokos. In one sense it is true: Mary bore Jesus, Jesus is God, therefore… But the Holy Trinity is where propositional logic breaks down: Man is not God, Jesus is a man, Jesus is God, contradiction.
Scripture calls Mary only the Mother of Jesus and that is the correct term to describe her. Can you imagine the confusion among pagans you are trying to evangelise if you call her Theotokos? They are going to think she is divine.
Protestants have struggled with that title, as Nestorius did, and since Scripture doesn’t use it, I wonder if we should. The standard Roman Catholic translation “Mother of God ” isn’t helpful, at least in Orthodox eyes. Maybe the problem is that “tokos” ‘bearer’ has two senses: the generative mother and the one who literally bears the child in her womb. Mary is the generative mother of Jesus but not of his divine nature. I’ll stop before I am condemned for Nestorianism.
Cyril fought dirty at Ephesus. The Nestorians accepted Jesus as being divine in the same way as his Father the Creator, and there was no disagreement about the Holy Spirit. Their “church of the east” ran all the way to China and lived for 1000 years. Disgracefully, though, they have been written out of church histories written by historians in the Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox traditions as supposedly not being Christian at all – all because of a disagreement about HOW Jesus is both divine and human, something that scripture is silent about.
The 1st creation was made by God out of nothing.
The 2nd creation was made out of nothing too but was placed within Mary to bring to term.
Therefore it is not Mary/Jesus but Mary | Jesus.
Hmmm. Mary as Theotokos is really important because of what it says about Jesus – that He is God, and always was God. He was not created by the Father, nor adopted by the Father. He did not take over the body of a pre-existing man. Nor was a false avatar like a Greek god descending in the form of a man (but not actually a man). If you step away from Mary as Theotokos, you fall into a misguided view of Christ.
Scripture manages to portray Jesus as divine without using the word Theotokos for Mary. That’s good enough for me.
Scripture doesn’t use the word Trinity. Do you object to that?
Do I object to the absence of the word Trinity in scripture or do I object to the concept? Neither.
The problem with Theotokos is that it will mislead pagans, whom you are trying to evangelise, into thinking that Mary is divine. Pleae glance again at my comment about propositional logic and Theotokos.
Denying Mary as the Theotokos gives a false idea of the incarnation, suggesting there is a point before Jesus became God.
Are you trying to misunderstand me deliberately or accidentally?
Anton, your proposition aligns with the teachings of Nestorius. The title of “theotokos” is not primarily a statement regarding Mary; rather, it is a statement regarding Jesus.
Jesus = God
Mary = Jesus’ mother
Regarding Christ, a human being was (and is) God. In a lesser sense, believers are deified and made “god-like” in Him.
So then – are we not permitted to refer to Mary as the mother of the *Son” of God?
Andrew you mentioned but did not explore the connected issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity. As the commentators note, references in the Gospels to Jesus’ siblings most naturally read as exactly that: his actual brothers, sisters, mother. Which clearly speaks against her perpetual virginity.
Mary’s perpetual virginity is nowhere deducible from scripture and is against the normal inference from it, in particular Matthew’s words about Mary in verses 1:18 and 1:25, that Joseph “had no [carnal] knowledge of her until she bore him a son” – which although stating nothing about what happened after her pregnancy is not likely to be how Matthew would have written if the couple had remained celibate. It is normal for husband and wife to have sexual relations in the early stages of pregnancy at least, which is why Matthew felt it necessary to point out that Joseph and Mary did not. If they continued with this unusual abstention after Jesus was born then Matthew would have been likely to say so. Certainly Paul takes the view that it is mistaken for them not to (1 Cor 7:5). Did Mary and Joseph have separate beds or bebrooms for the rest of their lives together? If you are told that a woman broke her leg before her wedding, and that she and her husband had no union until the plaster cast was removed, what do you suppose they did next? Abundant children are viewed throughout the Old Testament as a blessing, and Mary was blessed (Luke 1:48). The gospels refer to Jesus’ adelphoi and adelphai – ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters,’ which in John 2:12 (‘his brothers and disciples’) & 7:5 (‘even his brothers did not believe in him’) & Matt 12:47 (“your mother and brothers are outside” – “who are my brothers; these [disciples] are”) cannot mean in the spiritual sense. Catholics take these references to refer to cousins of Jesus (although there is a Greek word for that, anepsioi), or they postulate that Joseph was a widower with children from an earlier marriage (a claim for which there is no evidence in the Bible or any other contemporary source; the so-called Gospel of James can safely be ignored in view of its contents). Seven of the ten references to ‘his brothers’ in the gospels and Acts are in immediate connection to Mary. The exceptions are all in the passage John 7:2-10, which we have already seen cannot refer to spiritual brothers.
Indeed. I briefly referred to Jesus’ brothers when in conversation with a Catholic, and he became noticeably uncomfortable. Sadly Catholics have raised Mary to a god-like idol.
A new (approx 1963, designed by Coia) RC building in Maryhill, Glasgow had a picture of Mary on the front with the words ‘Mary, conceived without sin, have mercy on us who have recourse to thee’ surrounding it. Contradicting Ps.51:5 and Rom.3:23 takes you to Mary the Mediatrix. But 1Tim2:5 there is but one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Anything which detracts from our Lord, his work and the balm of his accessibility is so distressing.
The building had to be demolished a few years later.
I agree. But the Catholic view of 1 Timothy 2:5 is that every prayer which reaches God the Father has to be channeled through Jesus Christ as the final relayer before it reaches the Father – and that believers are free to phrase prayers to Mary (or angels, deceased saints etc), who then relay the prayers to Christ for onward transmission. I totally disagree, but you need to be ready with arguments against that scenario too.
Note that ‘perpetual virginity’ not only implies that she had no sex and no other offspring, but that Jesus was born supernaturally and not through her vaginal birth canal.
This is about the definition of virginity. It should of course mean that no man’s penis has ever entered the woman’s vagina, but it traditionally means an intact hymen, which Mary wass held by Catholic tradition to have after giving birth to the Lord Jesus Christ. I wonder. There is an absurd tale about Mary’s private parts in the extremely apocryphal Gospel of James, which I do not care to repeat here.
I ‘think’ it means that he was born through the vagina, but without rupturing the hymen and the other messy effects of childbirth. As Salome found to her dismay!
Like others here, I was raised a Roman Catholic, and came to adult faith in an Evangelical Anglican context. I distinctly remember my relief at the absence of Mary and the focus on Jesus. There were of course many things in common, not least the Series 3 liturgy which to me closely resembled the post-Vatican 2 Catholic Order for the Mass but, again, without much Mary. Over the years since then I have reflected on this, and have come to appreciate the role of Mary as obedient risk-taking disciple and faithful mother of Jesus. However, Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity and Assumption are not in my Bible (without some extremely speculative readings of unrelated texts*) and I continue to wonder how they have developed to the extent that they have. But I do now honour Mary as I do other significant heroes of the faith, with respect and gratitude for her example of discipleship and for her unique role in salvation history.
*The idea of seeing the Ark as a type of Mary (Psalm 132.8) is new to me, and I confess I find the idea rather baffling. I can see how it might have arisen, but, without tying myself in potentially heretical knots, surely the Ark is more properly a type of Jesus – God with us?
Over the centureis, Catholicism has appropriated more and more of the unique aspects of Jesus and appplied them to Mary. I am sure she looks on in horror from heaven.
One occasionally speculates about the final resting places of physical remains of the earliest figures of Christianity. It’s always assumed that St Paul died in Rome, while 1 Clement 5:7 (written before Paul/ Rome acquired totemic significance) implies that he reached Spain and died there. I do not however believe that there is an as-yet undisturbed corner of, for example, Ephesus, where the grave of the Blessed Virgin Mary might be found.
Pope Francis gave away to the Orthodox patriarchate in Constantinople in 2019 some of the bones found under St Peter’s which might just have been from the body of Peter. The tale of the discovery of those bones is remarkable. Perhaps the Vatican should call Philippa Langley in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb
I’ve been there, it’s a great tourist site, with Scripture passages in many languages on display – not a thing you see a lot of in Turkey.
If you want to do Roman Catholic theology, get it right: the Assumption is a logical consequence of Mary’s immaculate conception. Mary was naturally conceived but preserved from original sin in her mother Anne’s womb. This was a singular grace bestowed upon her by God to prepare a dwelling fit for his Son. Original sin entails the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and a corrupt, mortal nature. Mary was preserved from both these by God’s prevenient grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature which original sin brings. That is why Gabriel addresses her as kecharitomene, full of grace, a passive perfect participle indicating a permanent feature of her graced human nature. That’s the Scriptural basis for the dogma. Roman Catholic theology holds that this state of grace persisted through her whole life, from conception to her last breath, but she could not die, not having inherited the sin of Adam.
I don’t believe it, but there’s a logic to it.
I recognise that you are not personally committed to this belief, but (1) the whole world is fallen, not just human nature, i.e. every atom – of which Mary’s body was made; (2) just how confident are you that the passive perfect participle kecharitomene (‘full of grace’) indicates grammatically a PERMANENT feature of Mary?; (3) grace is unmerited favour, so that the angel is saying “Hail, you who are full of unmerited favour…” whereas if Mary was free of original sin then she would experience merited favour.
I am not only ‘not personally committed to this belief at all’, Anton, I think it verges on the ridiculous. But it is dogma for the majority of the Christian Church. Tinkering with gay blessings or lay presidency at the eucharist is by comparison small fry. But Anglican evangelicals do not mind one bit. Most evangelicals forget that, by the standards of the universal church, and unchanging tradition for 15hundred odd years, they are not orthodox at all.
It’s OK, Lorenzo, we’re used to being misunderstood – or even not particularly liked. There was a (long) time in the 4th century when St Athanasius was considered a heretic and there was a price on his head.
I prefer the standards of the Bible, by which the church will be judged.
How’s your Greek? I’d love an answer to my question (2)?
The perfect tense in Greek describes a completed action which produced results which are still in effect up to the present.
I have never read that it necessarily denotes a permanent-for-all-time state of affairs. Further, scholastic ideas about grace as supernatural substance infused into souls (rather than denoting the personal favour of God toward others) is pretty remote from the dynamic personalist way biblical writers think.
The same verb (kharitoo) is used in the active aorist (ekharitosen) in Ephesians 1.6, with God as the subject and Christians as the object, so I doubt it means it makes us sinless and preserves us from death.
/understatement
The perfect tense in Greek records the results of an action completed in the past and thus describes a present state. There is no intrinsic grammatical reason to believe that this state is permanent. (But Happy Jack hasn’t chimed in yet …)
Thanks Lorenzo. Yes, you are right, these all belong together, and you cannot have one without the others.
Depends whether you think the Orthodox Dormition is the same as the Catholic Assumption (and why wouldn’t you?). The Orthodox have the Dormition without believing in the Immaculate Conception.
The Orthodox are less certain than the Catholics that Mary had not died when her body was taken up to heaven.
Nor sure the Catholics are as certain as you think.
Ian – we don’t always agree, but I share the concerns of this article in a number of regards.
As noted above, the focus for a festival marking the BVM (not related to a specific event, such as the annunciation) was September 8 in the Alternative Service Book. That made sense, as there is no dispute that Mary was born, and Sep 8 is the traditional date. CW moved it to Aug 15, which I presume was in the spirit of making the lectionary more ecumenically compatible. There is a note that it can be moved back to Sep 8 for pastoral reasons (I wonder if that is code for theological objection!). My own view is that change introduced a confusion and ambiguity about whether the C of E was moving towards an acceptance of the Assumption, which it previously had clearly rejected.
The second problem I have is of the Biblical silence on the matter. On the basis that the NT was still being written towards the end of the first century, it seems extraordinary that there is no biblical account of such a special event occurring for someone who must have been held in high regard within the early Christian community.
My third problem is a broader point about the doctrines surrounding Mary. The Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity and Assumption all tend towards making Mary something other than human. The significance of the Incarnation is that it unites authentic humanity with authentic divinity. Regarding Mary as something more like an angelic figure diminishes the remarkable and radical character of the union of humanity and divinity in Jesus Christ,
BVM? Oof!
Just using a standard abbreviation
Yes, but it’s still ghastly. I don’t pray to JC!
Yes, it is standard—for those who believe in her perpetual virginity, I think.
It is the term used in the BCP, so I don’t think belief in perpetual virginity (which I don’t believe) is necessary in order to use it.
Although not in its abbreviated form, of course!
Ooh, thanks for that. I will check! I think you must be right…! (though it is then an odd term, since she was only a virgin up till a certain point…as are all mothers…!)
In dialogue with Catholics I am happy to call her Blessed Mary (and of course affirm her virginity during her pregnancy). In heaven, she will be regarded and treated as the mother of the King.
Anyway, a Happy Ferragosto to all, especially to folk in Italy, for which this the high point of summer and everything is ‘chiuso’ – as we discovered on holiday once. There are no doubt some lively processions carrying the statue of the Madonna through the streets of il paese, and no doubt bigger crowds at the beach. The ‘Feriae Augusti’ were decreed by the Emperor in 18 BC as a festal rest in mid-summer from the rigours of the agricultural life, and so they have continued to this day.
But in the midst of this summer festivity, spare a thought for the Frozen People, aka the Anglican Church of Canada, which has now officially collapsed as a church, with an attendance that has declined 70% in 20 years to about 65,000 now, or about 0.15% of the Canadian population. Of course the cathedrals and bishops still exist – but congregationally the Anglican Church of Canada has all but disappeared. According to this report, the Diocese of the Yukon had a TOTAL weekly attendance of 191 in 2017 and it has declined since. But still the Bishop of the Yukon was at Lambeth in 2022! And Justin Welby thinks we should join them, walking into the blizzard of woke.
https: // theothercheek . com . au / canada-is-the-anglican-churchs-titanic /
And which is the largest denomination in Canada by far? The Roman Catholic church which over 50% of Canadian Christians belong to and which is closest to the Walsingham branch of the C of E and fully believes in celebrating the assumption of Mary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada
“The Walsingham branch of the C of E”. Is that a building society? I’m with the Woolwich.
Just keep whistling past the graveyard, Simon.
The Anglo Catholic Walsingham branch of the C of E, which celebrates the Assumption of the Virgin Mary which Welby attended and which is far closer to the Roman Catholic church than it is to Protestant evangelicals even if they are currently in the same denomination still in England as it remains established church
The Anglican Church of Canada also has a healthy $3 million surplus, which is even better than the Woolwich sometimes managed, indeed it is now part of Barclays
https://episcopalnewsservice.org/2022/04/07/anglican-church-of-canada-may-have-3-6-million-surplus-for-2021/
Fantastic news! That will cover an extra serving of maple syrup on the pancakes at the party to celebrate the closing of the churches.
No need to close any, given the millions of dollars the Anglican Church of Canada gets from prudent investments of its liquid assets built up over centuries it could keep its churches open even if they had only 1 member of the regular congregation in each
… which is pretty much where they are headed.
Simon, you’re a gift that keeps on giving. 🙂
What might God make of that scenario?
There my be some justification in seeing Nestorius as somewhat less than heretical. However his Antiochene ( two natures) approach is less than satisfactory in spite of attempts to give it theological respectability. While he did not repudiate the term Theotokos, in his doctrine of the two natures, he introduced the term *prosopon* meaning*person” . He wrote: “I separate the natures, but unite the worship”.
Whatever the virtue of his overall argument, it falls very short of the Biblical imagery.
Anton has said (no doubt correctly) that “scripture calls Mary only ‘ the mother of Jesus”. But one factor has been largely missing so far here is that in the focus on Mary and her titles, little or no attention has been paid to the name and titles of Jesus!
‘Jesus’ = Saviour ; ‘Christ’ =Messiah (the anointed One) and if we take this a stage further, 2 Corinthians 3:16 reads ” when he turns to ‘the Lord (Kurios), the veil is lifted is and adaption of Exodus 34:34 where the Kurios refers to Yahweh. The continuation of the 2 Corinthians reading says “it (the veil) has not been removed, because only in Christ [the Messiah] can it be removed”. Messiah and Kurios are thus conjoined.
Jesus the son of Mary is (a) the Saviour, (b) the Messiah and (c) the Lord ! And what does Lord mean: a term of respect? Or a nebulous divine figure? Or something greater?- at the very least in the words of Hebrews 1,” The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.”
The shift from a Judeo/Christian understanding on the nature of the Godhead to a Hellenistic format no doubt has helped to clarify certain issues for absorption within the gentile world. But it also carried in its wake a radical departure from event, narrative and history, a pattern which Mike Peatman has eloquently expressed above . And has already been discussed, dogma whose primary objective is to make the Gospel and acceptable and even palatable for the masses (particularly in this secular age) will invariable end up manufacturing either an ethereal bolt-hole or , in the context of this particular post, a heavenly escape hatch.
Colin,
Sergeii Bulgakov has much to say on the misunderstood figure of Nestorius in his work Lamb of God / Агнец Божий — definitely worth a read, if you get a chance!
Scripture says clearly that Jesus is fully human and fully divine (in the sense of the Creator). But scripture says nothing about how. Christians would do well to leasve it at that. Philosophers rush in where angels fear to tread. The result has been needless division among believers. (Ditto re the filioque.)
Lorenzo, thank you for the explanation above, of which I was unaware, starting with prevenient grace which argues that Mary was sinless, not subject to the fall, and the chain of argumentation following on from that.
That , I find intriguing as in the question of salvation, some Protestants employ the argument of prevenient grace to by-pass the fall.
Sure, if anyone picks-up on this question in relation to salvation, we’ll end up moving away from the subject of the article. But that would be par for the course.
For the avoidance of doubt that this comment may raise, I do not accept RC teaching, doctrine, dogma on the person Mary, mother of Jesus. It is a distraction from the Person of Jesus, God incarnate, in the Triunity of God, and may amount to idolatry.
Many thanks for this discussion – as a free-churchman we tend to focus on sola scriptura so many of these extrabiblical views were novel and interesting…
And kudos to Ian for keeping an open forum on this site where all views are allowed, even if some are tiresomely off the point all the time.
We have to contrast this with ‘Thinking Anglicans’ where the moderation is as tight as a Scotsman’s wallet. Only a tiny range of views is allowed and if you express the traditional orthodox faith of the Church of England and the Catholic Church at large, there is little chance of your views being published.
As a result ‘Thinking Anglicans’ is little more than a liberal echo chamber with the same seven voices reaffirming each other. No chance of having to engage a different viewpoint there.
This is so easy to check for accuracy. Visit some recent discussion threads on Thinking Anglicans and you will find James contributing quite regularly there along with others holding conservative views. TA is a broad discussion forum of men and women (note). A number of inclusive evangelicals can be found there along with a numerous and diverse mix of anglo-catholic and more liberal theological voices.
Yes, check it for accuracy. And you will find that I commented and you and several others responded. And then I responded respectfully to your questions to me and to everyone else – and all of these responses were blocked by the moderator, while many new comments by regulars have since appeared (Janet Fife et al),
At one level I don’t really care because the blog belongs to Simon Sarmiento or whoever, and the owner can decide who to publish and who to block, But I find it illuminating that you, Penelope, Andrew Godsall, T1 and other liberal voices regularly comment here without any censorship but “Thinking Anglicans” quickly shuts down voices that dissent from liberalism. Even deep sceptics of historic Christianity who think the Incarnation and Resurrection are myths are regularly published there but evangelicals affirming the biblical teaching about marriage are shut up. A funny definition of “thinking Anglicans”, David!
Yes, I have just checked again and confirmed that none of the considered replies I made to questions asked directly to me by David Runcorn and six others have been published, although many new comments by ‘regulars’ have since appeared.
The impression is given that I didn’t or couldn’t reply. The truth is otherwise.
It would save a lot of time if the publisher of “Thinking Anglicans” just said “Anyone opposing the morality of same-sex relationships will not be published. Questioning any other historic teaching is fine.”
It’s not that strong opinions or content are absent: Janet Fife openly accuses the late Brandon Jackson of criminal sexual abuse, while a “FrDexter” seems to have serious doubts about Christianity itself. The only sensitivities seem to be over homosexuality. Why is this?
Just off on holiday. This is one for the road. Not all my comments appear there actually – but how would you know that James? They moderate across the range of voices in fact and I like it that on those threads no one is allowed to dominate (though recently one conservative has been allowed to post repeatedly and very angrily there). Everyone who finds themselves moderated tends to suspect persecution awork. But if it was the liberal echo chamber of seven voices (?!) you claim why are you, I and so many others there at all?
Well, here you are, David – you posted here at once and no censorship. A lesson for you and for ‘Thinking Anglicans’.
But it would be better if Simon Sarmiento commented here to explain, rather than you or I, since he decides who is heard and who isn’t.
As for ‘very angrily’ – how you can tell whether someone is ‘very angry’ from his or her simple commentary, I have no idea. Do you have a mystic power of mind-reading? Or is it just projection?
One thing I will counsel you: stop using emotive arguments and ad hominem comments about people you disagree with – and stop being so thin-skinned. More than once Ian has remarked that you pop up on this site, make some claim (usually about homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and what ‘evangelicalism’ means) and when you get pushback rejecting your claims, you don’t engage in actual New Testament exegesis (as your ex-colleague John Nolland always does), but announce that you’re pulling out of the conversation because the ‘tone’ is hostile, toxic, phobic etc.
That’s a very weak response, especially from someone who worked in academia. (Seriously, have you never read what someone like a David Hart or an Edward Feser writes? Have you never studied Church History? Have you ever read the strong words of an Athanasius or Luther? ) I imagine you would scold St Paul for having harsh words about the Galatians and lacking empathy with first century Judaising neo-Gnosticism.
You don’t engage with actual arguments about Scripture or biology or natural law or whatever – you just claim the moral high ground, assume your opponents are irrational, ignorant or ‘very angry’, complain about the ‘tone’ like a Victorian aunt at a tea party, and announce you are leaving.
That’s evasion, not engagement.
James, did you hear about my experience on ”Thinking” Anglicans?
Well over ten years ago, I was regularly commenting, and was alone in providing (and regularly) statistical backup for what I said. Interlocutors were at a disadvantage in not seeking, or being able to utilise, statistical backup.
Then the owner of the site started censoring more and more of what I said.
I asked him why. He said, he was struggling to find a way of saying this politely but – most of what I said was nonsense.
Firstly, I commented on a wide variety of thing in a wide variety of ways. Making such a sweeping generalisation totally impossible.
Second, he gave no details! Not a one. So how do we know he could back up the claim?
Third, if something is nonsense the thing to do is to refute it with sense. For example, if statistics are faulty, provide better ones.
Did he? I think you have guessed. No, he didn’t.
But I was banned anyway. Which is ‘logical’.
On later occasions I have sometimes managed to sneak in a comment before being hounded down.
The strangest thing is that those (not a few) who have claimed similar treatment have always been at the top end of the qualifications ladder.
Unlike many of those who are allowed to comment.
Even stranger is that the website calls itself Thinking while not only banning plenty of thought but also secondly banning specifically those who are more academically qualified.
Not everyone may be aware that the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ website is of this nature.
I can only imagine they ban statistical evidence because it removes the carpet from under their position?
But that is highly dishonest.
So from the Assumption of Mary to the (unmoderated) Assumptions of James.
David, if you have a comment to say based on empirical science, historical knowledge or biblical exegesis, you are always welcome to express it here. Expect people to engage with your claims and even to contest them vigorously.
That’s what I expect. The adult world is like that. I don’t get upset about what Andrew Godsall or Penny thinks about me. I tell myself: play the ball, not the man or woman. And I remember that ‘taking offence’ is very much a culturally subjective thing and has little to do with the truth or other of a claim.
And that’s why I find Penny’s comments often the most provocatively interesting. I don’t read her as trying to tame the gay male’s sex drive in a same-sex version of stifling and boring heterosexual marriage: she wants to ‘queer’ the whole idea of marriage and family life with a celebration of consequence-free hedonism that ancient Greeks would have easily understood. Penny is ahead of the game here. She knows, for example, that free sex without abortion is a miserable, dangerous business. So we have to get rid of our hangups.
Christopher: I am not surprised. The kind of work that someone like a Mark Regnerus does tends to enrage the left because they think of sociology as ‘their’ terrain; and it very often is, judging by the majority of people who devote their lives to sociology and the kind of things they study (many of which are couched in the subjective and qualitative language of experience and self-reporting).
As I alluded above, the fact of the matter is that our western lives of affluence today (poor people today have better health and more wealth than many a medieval monarch) is based on two sacred principles of the modern political economy: the free availability of abortion, and an abundance of cheap goods made abroad under servile conditions.
Anybody who challenged both of these principles without hesitation would be a “Thinking Christian”, Anglican or not.
James
Not even close. Admittedly, I don’t want to tame anyone sex’s drive. That’s between them and their God and I certainly don’t see SSM as an attempt to tame the gay male – what a revolting idea!
“she wants to ‘queer’ the whole idea of marriage and family life” true “with a celebration of consequence-free hedonism that ancient Greeks would have easily understood. Penny is ahead of the game here. She knows, for example, that free sex without abortion is a miserable, dangerous business. So we have to get rid of our hangups” absolute slanderous codswallop.
Just as well I contine to read the nasty rhetoric which poses as Christian apologetics on here. No wonder people get banned from TA if this is the sort of ghastly drivel they post.
Penny, you have said before you have no problem with abortion and quote a widespread Jewish position of acceptance of abortion as support.
And you do agree that you want to ‘queer’ the whole idea of marriage and family life. I have drawn out some of the implications of Queer ideology subverting New Testament norms. Think it through!
But as for the ‘revolting idea’ that you abjure at the start: taming the gay male is EXACTLY what advocacy of SSM is about: ‘permanent, exclusive, faithful’ is the mantra Jeffrey John always quoted, advocating an exclusive relationship instead of the (supposedly) consequence-free life of multiple sexual partners without commitment (which is why mpox is overwhelmingly a gay male problem in the west). Some of the folk on TA say that if the CofE had SSM, the Canon in Blackburn wouldn’t have been such a problem. I’m not so convinced myself.
Male-female sexual relations are qualitatively different from male-male sexual relations. It’s all there in Gen 1-2.
I have never ever said I had ‘no’ problem with abortion. I have cited Jewish beliefs as different from that of contemporary Christianity and, in my opinion, more faithful to scripture. But religious Jews do not, in the main, believe in abortion ‘on demand’.
I think it’s repellent to claim that marriage (either ‘straight’ or ‘gay’ is a means to tame sexual desire (sorry St Paul). Gay people who want permanent exclusive relationships want them for the same reasons as straight people: fides, sacramentum, and, sometimes proles.
The consequences of queering western conceptions of marriage and family would be: moving from individualism to community, smashing patriarchy, liberating women, granting women and children autonomy and agency, conceptualising different kinds of relationships in an increasingly atomised world, freeing men from masculinist pressures. All good gospel values.
I can assure you I have no serious doubts about Christianity, though I do doubt the faith of the sort evangelical who has so little trust in the supernatural powers of God that he can’t quite believe that God might be able to assume the highest of the redeemed into heaven that she might share in the resurrection of her Son in a particular way.
And, FWIW, I’ve given up reading the comments on TA, as they are indeed dominated by the same handful of bores and obsessives – not unlike this blog, really!
Hello, FrDexter, I am glad you had no trouble getting published here. I might have confused you with a FrDavid, if so, my apologies for my mistaken memory.
I have to say I have never met any evangelical who believed Almighty God couldn’t have resurrected the Mother of Christ and brought her directly into heaven if He had wanted to – and I really doubt that you have too.
The issues are, as you know, whether God actually
did this and should it be an article of faith. The Reformed faith of the Church of England finds no reason to believe this happened or that it was ever part of the apostolic faith. This doesn’t stop me finding paintings of the Assumption beautiful, like one I discovered in a church in Sicily.
If you think there isn’t any censorship for ‘liberal’ voices on here, I suggest you have a word with Ian.
Comment by comment censorship is extremely different from person by person.
The only person I have found on TA whose comments I enjoy reading is an individual named ‘Froghole’ who appears to have an encyclopedic knowledge of Anglicanism and generally has interesting things to say about its future direction.
Sometimes (but rarely) he comments on this blog.
Can I suggest we now stop this unhelpful comparison of blogs and trying to prove which is more open/varied/tolerant/etc. and which is moderated best. I’m thankful that people are willing to pout in the time and effort to host and moderate blogs. All we can each be responsible for are our own words and trying to speak them with as much clarity, graciousness and generosity as possible. Being right doesn’t give any of us permission to be acerbic, barbed or personal. I assume that one of our purposes is to build each other up and encourage each other even (especially?) when we disagree.
Unlike this site, which provids a steady stream of thought provoking mini-essays TA only links to a number of sites, mainly liberal opinion pieces. Psephizo actually generates discussion on particular topics, even if the conversation wanders into familiar byways.
Tim,
Nobody requires you to read this.
Anglican comprehensiveness is wonderful!
Tim, we could stop it if blogs were much of a muchness and if it were swings and roundabouts.
Why are you dictating that it must be much of a muchness and must be swings and roundabouts.
The truth could be extremely far from that. So why censor the truth being brought to light?
Particularly is it odd for those who have first hand experience to be discouraged by those who have not. Is that not the wrong way round?
Does the Church of England even know what church is? Is it consigned to history?
Is it disestablishing itself by revision?
https://unherd.com/2024/08/why-cant-the-church-say-church/
Good article from Fraser expressing concern from the Catholic wing of the C of E over its direction under Welby, despite his visit to Walsingham. ‘A recent study, as reported in the Church Times, of the word church — if I can still use that word — across 11 Dioceses of the Church of England (see, it’s tricky to avoid) has found that “in the past 10 years, about 900 ‘New Things’ have been started. None of the 11 dioceses used the word ‘church’ as its main descriptor of such developments…It is the job of an Archbishop to hold the ring, to keep this coalition of interests at peace with itself. Welby has not done this. Of the 900 New Things reported by the Dioceses, only five of them are from this more Catholic side of the church coalition. New Things “has been, and remains, essentially an evangelically driven project”.
Which is why those who want to complete the unfinished business of the Reformation — getting rid of priesthood, and all that Catholic mysterious mumbo-jumbo of the Eucharist, as they see it — have spotted their opportunity. Last month, a number of big London churches decided to commission a number of men — yes, only men — to lead services of Holy Communion without them being ordained priests. It is absolutely a central pillar of Catholic Christianity, to which the Church of England has always seen itself as a part, that only priests can celebrate the Eucharist. As Matt Parks, the Chair of the church group Affirming Catholicism explained: “Permitting a form of Holy Communion in the Church of England presided over by those who are not ordained makes a mockery of the sacraments.”’
So T1, what is ‘church’?
Are you able to answer this question, without prevarication, asked of you a number of times without any answer at all.?
A building in each Parish. Often grade listed and centuries old in the UK, which hosts weddings, baptisms and funerals and weekly services, mainly involving the Eucharist and where services are led by an ordained minister
Well, the New Testament fails on all those counts. Oh dear …
So that’s no idea, then, T1. Tragic. Better to have stayed schtum, methinks.
Next,
1.Who is a Christian?
2. How is a Christian, a Christian?
You are not obliged to say anything, but adverse evidential conclusions may be drawn. So, staying schtum is not an option.
No that is what a Catholic interpretation of a church would be. Evangelicals I recognise would expand the definition to include, for instance, a house or pub lounge where some bible readings are done on a sofa or a field where some modern hymns are sung or people speak in tongues as a church but I am on the Catholic wing of Christianity more than the Evangelical wing
Geoff wrote: ‘adverse evidential conclusions may be drawn’. James, isn’t this an example of the censorship on Ian’s blog? Not from the blog owner, but from those who frequently (sic.) comment?
Geoff asked for a definition. T1 gave a faultless one if ‘definition’ is what ‘meaning’ is about. Why, then, the mockery?
When secular humanism as virulent as in China, or Islam, persecutes you out of church buildings, will the church cease to exist? Or will it become more true to its Lord and to his scriptures?
Bruce, I’m sure you know how language works. I’m sure you know the difference between censure and censor.
T1 prefers a censer.
Hello Bruce,
For the avoidance of doubt, the question was, What Is Church?
It was not a how, when, where question.
It could have been, why church?
If it is thought that there was a faultless answer, we really are not on the same theological page.
Is there nothing that is essential missing?
It was my two follow-up questions that sought to tie down the essentials.
And it was from these that remain yet again unanswered from which evidential conclusion could be drawn. And I do draw them.
Words such as evangelical in are often bandied about, in a derogatory way, yet when asked, frequently what the evangel is, there is no answer.
So, I’d ask you Bruce, to read my comments more carefully and quote them in the correct order and context, please if you are going to comment on any interaction I may have with others. Thanks.
As James pointed out, there is nothing of the New Testament in T1’s comments, (though he may, highly selectively, stick to the Old Testament office of priesthood, yet at the same time may jettison the rest, from a position akin to neo Marcionism, and antinomianism.)
BTW,
I’m of the view of J Gresham Machen that liberalism is a different religion from Christianity, see his book, ‘Christianity and Liberalism’.
He is cited as have written, liberalism’s true nature was “hidden by the duplitious use of traditional terms and categories by liberal clergy.”
I do not know whether T1 is a member of liberal clergy.
Bye. Yours in Christ, Geoff.
Anton, yes.
TA will censor you.
Bruce will censure you
T1 will censer you.
It just sends you mad.
I sense you’re right.
When secular humanism as virulent as in China, or Islam, persecutes you out of church buildings, will the church cease to exist? No, as churches are private property and we are not a communist dictatorship like China. The EDL and the like are also far more combative with Islam than the C of E, even the King after all wishes to be defender of all faith in his Kingdom
You have no idea what is coming, T1, albeit not next year.
The EDL no longer exists, by the way.
The EDL’s former leader Tommy Robinson very much still exists, as shown by his tweets to his large numbers of followers in the recent riots. Some of its former members joined parties like For Britain and even Farage and his Reform Party has said it sympathises with some of its aims even if it opposes violence
T1, you have four errors:
Seeing things like ‘Catholic’ and ‘Evangelical’ as infallible, and set in stone. I mean – honestly! They are neither. There is no reason why these two groupings and identities should exist or persist – it is an historical accident that they do.
Giving them precedence over the actual Founder. Cart before horse.
Paying no attention to the KJV translation of ‘ekklesia’ (assembly) as ‘church’, which has given rise to confusion.
Never showing any capability of responding to points like this. But to be unable to respond is automatically to have lost the argument.
Of course its members still exist; you didn’t expect them to commit suicide just because it evaporated did you? The point is, of course, that the far-right has no organisation whatsoever. And organisation is what makes a difference.
The riots were an illegitimate expression of a legitimate grievance. A great many peaceable and non-racist people share the concerns of those rioters, and the government would be wise to address those concerns instead of abusing persons who hold them.
Anton
Legitimate concerns about looting bath bombs and burning refugees alive?
Penelope
I suggest you look at the rate of immigration statistics per year for the past 100 years. Most Brits are happy to welcome immigrants who come at a measured rate and who wish to work hard and gradually assimilate. Equally, though, many Brits are unhappy at rates of immigration from alien cultures so great as to make locals feel they are being dispossessed of their own culture. Tampering irreversibly and visibly with national identity is apt to induce rage in those who regard Britain as their ‘home’, because something is passing which they never thought about before, and which they hold dear beyond words. The more so when mass immigration makes housing unaffordable and the NHS inaccessible, taxes go to pay hotel bills for illegal immigrants rather than to the NHS, immigrants get priority for social housing over locals on waiting lists, one particular minority that declines to assimilate has sacred writings licensing forcible takeover, and the authorities long ignored the raping of thousands of teenage girls from the poorer sector of the white community in multicultural towns. On top of all that, Brits are unhappy at being told by their so-called betters that they are irredeemably racist if they dare to mention these things. (If it is so dreadful here, why does half the world wish to come?)
A question for you: If it is right for the Punjab to be a homeland for Sikhs, China to be a homeland for Chinese, etc, why must England regard itself as a melting pot rather than a homeland for the English?
Anton, I am reminded of those riots in August 2011 across English cities which led to five deaths and 3000 arrests, mainly young black people, and many stores and properties were looted and burned.
At the time David Lammy MP said, ‘True justice can only follow a through investigation of the facts”, and I would say the same about the 2024 riots.
Obviously one had to stop the young criminals – but also to investigate why they behaved that way. The same approach was taken to the 1981 Toxteth riots.
Anton
England has never been a homeland for the ‘English’. Racism is not legitimate concerns. And even if people are legitimately concerned about rates of immigration, burning people alive is not really an acceptable way to raise those concerns.
The poor sods who have ended up in prison (deservedly) are themselves victims of the rhetoric of Farage, Yaxley-Lennon, Tice, Anderson, Hopkins, Fox and Calvin Robinson. Who should all be in prison with them, for incitement.
Penelope
You apparently forget that the first thing I did when discussing this subject was to describe the riots as illegitimate; and (on another recent thread here) call the rioters far-right, intended perjoratively. But you are ignoring what their grievance is and how many other peacable people feel the same way. I specified those grievances and you have merely diverted from them.
I am hurt that you have not added me to a list that includes Farage, Tice, Anderson and Calvin Robinson. Unlike you, we believe that you should have the freedom to talk nonsense. Do you regard Robinson as an Uncle Tom?
England has had a distinct cultural identity, shared by the great majority of its inhabitants of all social classes, from the time the Norman aristocracy ceased to regard themselves as continentals, roughly seven centuries ago, to Blair. I now know the correct response to the kneejerk leftist accusation of ‘racist!’ It is ‘Anglophobe’.
Anton
The rioters’ grievance’, if they have one, is a manipulated anger directed at migrants rather than at the real authors of their educational, spiritual and societal poverty. They have been radicalised by bad actors to blame migrants (or rather Muslim or black migrants) for their disadvantages. Their grievances are real but directed at the wrong people. Which is very convenient for those orchestrating these grievances who are mostly from white elites.
Britain (and England) has always been a mongrel country and much the better for it. The Anglo Saxons held sway for such a short time and only in some areas of ‘England’. We have been enriched by cultural dispersions for millennia.
In one sense you are right, Penelope, the people that deserve the present ire are not peacable legal immigrants but rather the cultural traitors who let in so many immigrants from very different cultures, including one that practices nonassimilation and has seditious scriptures.
I am willing also to contradict multicultural dogma by saying that some cultures are better than others. That has nothing to do with race, of course. Most recent immigrants agree with me: they wish to leave their own cultures to come to ours.
England has always received immigrants in small numbers, and taken up the best of their new ideas. I think of the Jews from the 17th century, and again in the early 20th century when pogroms were going on. Also the Huguenots. On a larger scale, innovations have long travelled the great steppe belt connecting the four great civilisations of Eurasia (Europe, the MidEast, India, China), to the enrichment of all. But a new experiment has been foisted on the English without having been stated in any manifesto in the last 30 years; and when we complain peaceably, we are insulted as supposedly racist. I’m mainly surprised it took so long before rioting began. It wil simmer until or unless governments start to listen. I do not grant you superior insight into the underlying grievances.
What is “church”?
This is one of those occasions when the Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a helpful, elegant, and succinct answer: “Church” designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community, or the whole universal community of believers. Those three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the people that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ, and so herself becomes Christ’s Body.
That’s what we’re saying when we translate ‘ekklesia’ as ‘Church’. But the English word ‘church’ comes from the Greek word ‘kyriake’ meaning ‘what belongs to the Lord’ so you can see why it would be applied to physical building we worship in and not just a group of people.
Very true. But options where the assembly word is distinct from the building word will always be clearer than options where it is not, and where we are stuck with the main word for both of these two being the same word. KJV muddied the waters in this respect.
Doesnt the Catholic church view ‘the Church’ as only said Catholic church, ie Catholic believers who adhere to Catholic teachings and doctrines?
I think that’s got a slightly more fuzzy answer than people tend to realise PC1. The Catholic Catechism talks about the “desire to recover the unity of all Christians”, which logically means the unity doesn’t currently exist, and therefore there are Christians outside the formal Catholic Church. In the discussion of other Christians who are not united in communion with Rome the Catechism says: “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”
Adam, yes indeed. That is why I quite often value and go to the Catechism. This definition is actually very close to the shorter definition in Article XIX.
and whisper it quietly Ian, the CCC definition might be better than Article XIX:
“The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”
Article XIX invites a very particular understanding of what a congregation is which is less than obvious, and has a very mindbending bit of 16th century grammar. Aside from not being clear what the errors of other Churches are, is it just me or is the Church of Constantinople a little conspicuous by its absence from the list?
James.
Let’s look at the question of ‘how language works’ (your 18 August 12.20am comment).
You will notice that I didn’t write ‘censor’! I did write ‘censorship’; further, I wrote ‘censorship on Ian’s blog’; and even further, I wrote ‘the censorship on Ian’s blog’; and yet even further, I wrote ‘an example of the censorship on Ian’s blog’. And even yet even further, I asked for you to think about what ‘censorship on Ian’s blog’ might look like (‘James, isn’t this…’). So, for example, does ‘censorship on Ian’s blog’ look like commenters being subjected to inquisition on their faith?
Your comment retreats to focusing on the ‘meaning’ of individual words, ‘censure’ and ‘censor’ (very droll, James). It’s noteworthy that this was what James Barr was upset about all those years ago. Yet biblical interpreters still keep on with that inadequate view of ‘how language works’.
Which is why those who want to complete the unfinished business of the Reformation — getting rid of priesthood, and all that Catholic mysterious mumbo-jumbo of the Eucharist, as they see it — have spotted their opportunity.
I don’t want to abolish the priesthood. I want to abolish the laity.
“I don’t want to abolish the priesthood. I want to abolish the laity.”
Is that a quote?
May the Angel fling the censor on the earth.
It’s not an original of mine, sadly. David Pawson said in a teaching tape that he had used it in a debate.
The Anglican Church of Canada is well on the way to achieving the goal of abolishing the laity.
Though with 294, 931 people on its parish rolls the Anglican Church of Canada still has about double the membership of the more conservative Anglican Church in North America which has 128,114 members despite including those who oppose ordination of women, having no female bishops and defining marriage as exclusively between a man and woman and that same sex attracted should abstain from sexual activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Church_of_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Church_in_North_America
True. Most are now attending non-anglican churches.
Big Anglican churches in Canada like St John’s Shaughnessy lost their property worth millions when they left. Still, I think that’s the cost of discipleship. The lesson from that is always to retain title to your property.
I think Little Trinity Church in Toronto (where George Carey had a charismatic experience) has also fallen foul of the ruling regime in ACoC, so that ACoC has become monochrome radical-fundamentalist. And empty.
James, indeed (on property) and the big difference in England is that both freehold and common tenure vest the property in the incumbent, and not in the diocese.
Ah, A missionary once visited an old African chief. The chief asked, “What is a Christian?” The missionary answered, “A Christian doesn’t steal his enemy’s cattle. A Christian doesn’t run off with his enemy’s wife. A Christian doesn’t murder his enemy.”
The chief said, “I understand. Being a Christian is the same as being old! When I was young, I attacked my enemy and stole his wife and cattle. Now I am too old to attack my enemy; I am a Christian!”
definitions; I am reminded of an old missionary story.
My comment above was mangled when posted, Opening sentence appears at the end.
James,
Isn’t that the epitome of self-serving? And of ridding the organisation of useful idiots with all that lovely lolly remaining with the incumbent High Priest, Judas. (This is not to be identified with any particular person, but a new progressive family rank of priesthood!)
Christopher S, above and T1 (and Bruce S) in relation to the question, What is church? here is an article/abstract of what I had in mind, (but not set out more fully, apologies for that) when I stressed the evidential nature of silence- lack of response, in this matter by T1).
“Silence as evidence.”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-14994-0_9
Still hankering for an inquisition I see.
No one in the comments section of a blog is on trial Geoff (no matter how much you agitate for it)…
Nobody is on trial but everybody can see when a question is ducked.
AJB,
It is a question of probing and discernment, a weighing of opinion and comment, no matter how you would like it otherwise.
And some AJB, may see your comment as a predictably, facile, twitter mode, comment, from the revisionist position, who can see no validity in the abstracted article, even (or particularly) in this forum ( a tribunal by an other name) of comments that seeks to persuade or advocate for and from a predetermined position.
Of course this point of evidence of silence carries much heft when analysing the revisionists case and as drawn out in substantial detail in the many articles by Andrew Goddard relating to the Bishops manoeuvres.
This forum is not a tribunal by another name Geoff. Rattling off your inquisition questions, demanding answers, and choosing to declare your own victory when people disengage from the flame war (or resist getting drawn into one) isn’t evidence of anything. And it makes an interesting contrast with Ian’s own advice to participants that he doesn’t why people persist in the lengthy back and forth (and will himself disengage when he wants to).
Adam, I agree! I long for the time when comments return to being positive and respectful exchanges between a range of different viewpoints.
So is there nothing of validity in the abstracted article that is relevant to the question and response of what is church ( relevant that is, logically probative of the fact in issue) or will you continue to indulge in your over-
hyped fallacies.
Neither, yours nor mine will ever be the last word. Bye, bye.
Relevant to discussion on here? No. The particulars of the Abstract you cited were for legal arguments in trial, before a tribunal, which is not what we’re doing here. Add to that you’ve skipped over the rather important test of reasonableness. And when we turn to looking to a more general case, the Abstract itself says that silence is “an unreliable source from which to draw inferences”.
AJB: exactly!
Geoff, I am interested in how we humans use language. So can I ask you when you say ‘bye’ to someone commenting, are you asking for their silence? Or, even, maybe, acting as a censor?
Sorry, Ian.
I set out precisely what I think a church is, being on the Catholic wing of Christianity. Namely a building, usually centuries old, which hosts weddings, funerals and baptisms and holds weekly or at least monthly Eucharist services presided over by an ordained minister. There was no silence at all, you just disliked my response
That is odd, since it is not how the Church of England understands the word…and you keep claiming to be a true Anglican.
Do check out Article XIX.
Let’s be fair – Simon is defining “a church” not “the Church”, and giving a suitably Catholic emphasis on the sacraments (in particular the Eucharist) that isn’t out of line with Article XIX.
Exactly
Which contradicts what I defined a church as where? Article XIX even makes clear a requirement that ‘…the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance .’
I notice you did not mention Article XXIII ‘IT is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same.
And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have publick authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.’
Or Article XXVII ‘The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.’
T1,
You need to go back and look at the follow-up questions asked (and for that matter the response from James to your answer. It is a question that remains unanswered, a matter of theological and scriptural substance, and would include the question, Why church? not a one of mere likes/dislikes.
But it is pleasing that you seem to have read the abstracted article on the evidence of silence, by seeking an attempt to repeat your original as a satisfactory and suffient answer. Thanks.
I’m sure he did dislike your response, but based on scripture so does the Holy Spirit, and if that is not high enough for you then so would Archbishop Cranmer and others who drafted the Articles.
Where does the Holy Spirit or Articles deny the role of the sacraments, baptism, marriage and funerals under the leadership of ordained ministers?
You said, and further up this subthread, that the church meant a building.
It does, with a whole lot of other elements too ie ordained ministers, Eucharists, weddings, funerals and baptisms. A building alone without those elements is not a church
Certainly my local pub doesn’t do those things and isn’t a church. But the church of the first two centuries had no buildings and didn’t do funerals or weddings. You must think it wasn’t a proper church.
No, it was the preachings of Jesus taken on by his disciples and followers. It was not a church until buildings for the sacraments and Eucharist led by ordained ministers were built
Well it called itself ekklesia. Scripture is good enough for me but you might have higher standards.
If you knew your Greek you would know that ‘Ekklesia’ does not mean church but merely a gathering of people. Indeed in ancient Greece it merely referred to a gathering of people discussing the issues of the day
Of course I know enough Greek to know that. And to know what it was translated as in the King James Bible.
‘Ekklesia Definition
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
the assembly of the Israelites
any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
in a Christian sense
an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven’
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/ekklesia.html
And no mention of any building, is there?
‘In a Christian sense an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake.’
In the Anglican church those regulations of course require administration of the sacraments by a licensed minister and observance of other religious rites such as marriages, baptisms and funerals in an approved church building
And a reminder, specific to the CoE, as afforded by Ian Paul can be found here:
https://www.churchsociety.org/resource/article-19-of-the-church/
Article XIX requires ‘…the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance .’
Article XXIII ‘IT is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same.
T1,
1.Who is Holy Spirit?
2. What did He do?
3. What does He do?
4. What does the imperative be Holy as God Holy mean?
5. On what scriptural indicatives is the imperative based?
“according to Christ’s ordinance .’ How would you define this?
According to the ritual Christ himself set out at the last supper to drink the wine representing his blood and the bread his body in remembrance of him
Nothing about “who could” do this then or “who couldn’t” ?
Any Christian then…
No a descendant of the disciples via apostolic succession ie a bishop who then ordains a priest to perform the Eucharist Mass