http://feedingonchrist.com/vern-poythress-on-redeeming-sociology/?
Divine dispatches: a religion roundup
If You Seek Amie; CoE opportunity – gay people and divorcees need not apply; go-to rabbis; and a rush on sharia law
Get off our land! … what the archbishops of York and Canterbury should be saying to the Anglican Mission in England. Photograph: Anna Gowthorpe/PA Archive/PA
Following the Twitterstorm involving Johann Hari and the phantom quote I'd like to point out that quotes are attributed as appropriate except where they're not. Welcome to a bumper edition of Divine dispatches!
• If You Seek Amie then you've come to the right place. Amie is of course an acronym for the Anglican Mission in England – not to be confused with Amie – The Associate Member of the Institute of Engineers. And what a misnomer of an acronym it is. What's that saying? Beware of strangers bearing gifts. Amie states, not at all ominously, that its intention is to support "those who have been alienated so that they can remain within the Anglican family. Churches or individuals may join or affiliate themselves with the Amie for a variety of reasons. Some may be churches in impaired communion with their diocesan bishop who require oversight. Others may be in good relations with their bishop but wish to identify with and support others."
So, in non-Anglican parlance, this means if you don't like your bishop you can have another one that fits more neatly with your world view. They don't even have to be a bishop in the Church of England. I have three words for you – cross-border intervention. I also have four words for you – church within a church. What do the sages at Lambeth Palace and Bishopthorpe have to say about this parking of tanks on the CoE lawn? I'll tell you – nothing! What should they say? Get off my land, that's what.
Julia Neuberger
Last weekend the Sunday Times carried a job advert – director of communications for the Church of England. The advert specified the candidate would be "somebody who will share our values and whilst not necessarily an Anglican, is a practising Christian (this post is subject to an occupational requirement that the holder be a practising Christian under Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010 because of its representational role and its responsibility for maintaining a Christian ethos within the national Church, as one of its senior officers)". In crude terms this legalese means no LGBT Christians, no multiply-divorced Christians. But the Church of England has denied this in the strongest terms possible, saying the requirement that the Anglican Alastair Campbell (perish the thought) "be a practising Christian means what it says, neither more nor less. Staff are appointed to senior positions in the national institutions of the Church of England by fair and competitive processes. They have to be able to show that they can serve it in all its diversity and operate its equal opportunities policies. Suggestions that appointments are made in pursuit of a particular cultural or partisan agenda are completely unfounded."
The synod's secretary general William Fittall had earlier told a parliamentary committee that it would not be credible if the director of communications "had been married three times and caused a scandal, or if he were a campaigning member for gay rights in a sexually active relationship" and that there are requirements that have to be imposed "both at recruitment and when someone is in post". The rules for bishops are rather more restrictive.
• Who speaks for Jews? The chief rabbi is not the chief rabbi for all Jews, just the ones who are members of the United Synagogue as I am sometimes reminded after I've written about Anglo-Jewry. But the progressive movements are hard at the heels of the modern orthodox. There are more Masorti/Liberal/Reform synagogues than US ones. During a lunch earlier this week at the West London Synagogue, Julia Neuberger made several interesting points about the changing demographic of Britain's small but powerful Jewish communities. She said Reform was making more efforts to welcome the semi-Jews and demi-Jews. People who are a bit Jewish, who might have a Jewish grandparent, don't really do the G_d stuff but like the cultural aspects of the religion. She claims, and I only have her word for it but she looks like a good sort, "the Jewish community is not diminishing, just changing. I am more interested in being open to demi-Jews and semi-Jews. There's a lot we should be doing to pull these people in." To illustrate the point, Ben Rich, president of the Reform movement, said that the cross-denominational school JCoSS is oversubscribed while the JFS is in its third round of offers. Miaow. His point being that, since the opening of JCoSS, parents who are a bit Jewish have somewhere to send their kids without feeling like they have to beat a path to their nearest synagogue to prove how Jewish they are. Rich said, referring to the chief rabbi's retirement in 2013, that it was "really up for grabs as to who speaks for British Jewry in the next few years". There then followed a discussion – driven largely by Ruth Gledhill at The Times – about how Reform should have a chief rabbi of its own. But then the movement would fall into the trap that I mentioned at the start of this item – he or she would not speak for all Jews. That's one of the issues. Another is that Reform is – like it says on the tin – a non-conformist movement so, er, why have a chief rabbi? And are journalists so lazy we need a go-to rabbi when doing a story? The answer to this last question may be short – and rather painful.
• If You Seek Amie then you've come to the right place. Amie is of course an acronym for the Anglican Mission in England – not to be confused with Amie – The Associate Member of the Institute of Engineers. And what a misnomer of an acronym it is. What's that saying? Beware of strangers bearing gifts. Amie states, not at all ominously, that its intention is to support "those who have been alienated so that they can remain within the Anglican family. Churches or individuals may join or affiliate themselves with the Amie for a variety of reasons. Some may be churches in impaired communion with their diocesan bishop who require oversight. Others may be in good relations with their bishop but wish to identify with and support others."
So, in non-Anglican parlance, this means if you don't like your bishop you can have another one that fits more neatly with your world view. They don't even have to be a bishop in the Church of England. I have three words for you – cross-border intervention. I also have four words for you – church within a church. What do the sages at Lambeth Palace and Bishopthorpe have to say about this parking of tanks on the CoE lawn? I'll tell you – nothing! What should they say? Get off my land, that's what.
Julia Neuberger Last weekend the Sunday Times carried a job advert – director of communications for the Church of England. The advert specified the candidate would be "somebody who will share our values and whilst not necessarily an Anglican, is a practising Christian (this post is subject to an occupational requirement that the holder be a practising Christian under Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010 because of its representational role and its responsibility for maintaining a Christian ethos within the national Church, as one of its senior officers)". In crude terms this legalese means no LGBT Christians, no multiply-divorced Christians. But the Church of England has denied this in the strongest terms possible, saying the requirement that the Anglican Alastair Campbell (perish the thought) "be a practising Christian means what it says, neither more nor less. Staff are appointed to senior positions in the national institutions of the Church of England by fair and competitive processes. They have to be able to show that they can serve it in all its diversity and operate its equal opportunities policies. Suggestions that appointments are made in pursuit of a particular cultural or partisan agenda are completely unfounded."
The synod's secretary general William Fittall had earlier told a parliamentary committee that it would not be credible if the director of communications "had been married three times and caused a scandal, or if he were a campaigning member for gay rights in a sexually active relationship" and that there are requirements that have to be imposed "both at recruitment and when someone is in post". The rules for bishops are rather more restrictive.
• Who speaks for Jews? The chief rabbi is not the chief rabbi for all Jews, just the ones who are members of the United Synagogue as I am sometimes reminded after I've written about Anglo-Jewry. But the progressive movements are hard at the heels of the modern orthodox. There are more Masorti/Liberal/Reform synagogues than US ones. During a lunch earlier this week at the West London Synagogue, Julia Neuberger made several interesting points about the changing demographic of Britain's small but powerful Jewish communities. She said Reform was making more efforts to welcome the semi-Jews and demi-Jews. People who are a bit Jewish, who might have a Jewish grandparent, don't really do the G_d stuff but like the cultural aspects of the religion. She claims, and I only have her word for it but she looks like a good sort, "the Jewish community is not diminishing, just changing. I am more interested in being open to demi-Jews and semi-Jews. There's a lot we should be doing to pull these people in." To illustrate the point, Ben Rich, president of the Reform movement, said that the cross-denominational school JCoSS is oversubscribed while the JFS is in its third round of offers. Miaow. His point being that, since the opening of JCoSS, parents who are a bit Jewish have somewhere to send their kids without feeling like they have to beat a path to their nearest synagogue to prove how Jewish they are. Rich said, referring to the chief rabbi's retirement in 2013, that it was "really up for grabs as to who speaks for British Jewry in the next few years". There then followed a discussion – driven largely by Ruth Gledhill at The Times – about how Reform should have a chief rabbi of its own. But then the movement would fall into the trap that I mentioned at the start of this item – he or she would not speak for all Jews. That's one of the issues. Another is that Reform is – like it says on the tin – a non-conformist movement so, er, why have a chief rabbi? And are journalists so lazy we need a go-to rabbi when doing a story? The answer to this last question may be short – and rather painful.
No comments:
Post a Comment