Today’s Church Times column by the pugnaciously liberal Giles Fraser made me want to look up the new bishop-designate of Peterborough for myself. Okay, his series on the 39 articles is twelve years old, and he could have changed his mind in a number of ways, but this is what he was teaching in 1997. The references are all to pdf files.
From here.
The cross has the astonishing power to change God’s attitude to us. [er, Rom 5:8 anyone]
From here.
[On scripture] Even when the Church hides or distorts the message, the believer may go straight to the source, to God’s very voice, and hear for himself or herself. [private judgement with a vengeance]
The Roman church’s insistence on accepting the Apocrypha as part of Scripture, despite the fact that it was written after the New Testament and is full of very dubious ‘history’, necessitated the Reformers’ statement that the ‘canonical’ (genuine) books were those accepted by the Early Church. [how factually incorrect can you get?]
From here
[Augustine –] Undoubtedly the greatest theologian since Paul (and the only post- Biblical one whose teachings we can really trust until the Reformation a thousand years later) [So sorry Irenaeus, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory et al]
The doctrine of justification (Article 11) teaches that God has dealt with sin, punishing Christ for it on the cross of Calvary. [well he'll have interesting conversations with my Lord of Durham]
From here
good deeds done by a non-Christian … have the same ultimate and eternal value for the soul of the one who performs them as a sinful act [well, he has the articles on his side]
From here
Even worse [than communion] is the word ‘eucharist’, which really means thanksgiving (only one aspect of the service and not the most important one). The word ‘mass’ is worst of all, with its downright heretical associations with transubstantiation and sacrifice. [So much for valuing the diversity of his diocese]
From here
Just because a congregation belongs to a body such as the Church of England does not mean it is a real living church. The Article is clear that the church must consist (at least in part) of believers, [I wonder if he will approach his new parishes with charity or suspicion]
If each local fellowship is the church and denominations are man-made groups designed to help the church, it is clear that authority does not lie in the denominations. … authority does not lie within the Church of England as a denomination. The Church of England is more a federation of independent local churches … Each is free to decide how it will operate and worship and to interpret Scripture for itself. [Er, Act of Uniformity anyone?]
… churches must not come together to talk or plan in any way that looks politically subversive. … Even though civil leaders may have no Christian beliefs, the church is not to threaten but to support their role [er, the Confessing Church anyone?]
From here:
The battle for a biblical view of the sacraments had to be fought on two main fronts. In the 16th century, when the Thirty-nine Articles were written, this was seen very clearly. The battle was intense. It cost many lives. But it was absolutely necessary. [Sorry, taking life was necessary to defend biblical truth??]
[the sacraments] do not give grace, but because of the necessary preparation and the attitude of humble receptiveness they demand, they do act as a means or channel of grace [sounds like they're quite easily substituted then]
I think I’ve selected fairly some of those things that can be fairly represented in short excerpts. Some of his longer arguments are equally likely to cause dispute. As I noted above, he may have changed his mind on one or more of these. Today’s Church Times (behind subscriber wall, sorry) has him saying he has changed his mind on the ordination of women. I also assume he would dislike my series on the articles just as much.
On the other hand, I think the Diocese of Peterborough has made a rather mismatched choice for its current breadth and diversity
{ 3 comments }
I sure hoe you never find stuff I was writing twelve years ago and dig it up to fling at me. I’ve changed my mind on a lot of stuff since then
As I hope I acknowledge by noting the age of this series. I honestly don’t know whether he has changed his mind. This series seems to indicate a fairly settled and relatively belligerent set of views. He may have repudiated all or most of them. I wait to see, but I’m not entirely optimistic.
I also note that someone at 30 may well reject most of the views they held at 18. Someone who is 57 is less likely to reject the views they held at 45.
Comments on this entry are closed.