Gavin, George, and Kevin talk about the breaking news from Truro Church in Virginia and the complicated relationships of Seminaries in England.
Gavin, George, and Kevin talk about the breaking news from Truro Church in Virginia and the complicated relationships of Seminaries in England.
There was a model for clerical formation coming out of the Jesuit’s great success in the counter-Reformation. Know your opponent’s argument better than he. It is claimed some seminaries would spend two years tearing down the Bible and conclude with two years putting it back together. A new priest should be equipped to do battle.
At some point seminary education got hung up with The Enlightenment and intellectualism. The study of Greek and redaction was a pursuit to find alternate meanings to the accepted myth of Christianity and bring it back to the ultimate scientific truth of no God. So much BS. By the way, I have the only copy of the Q document and will sell you copies for the right fee.
Everyone who owns a New Testament already has a copy of Q.
Perhaps part of the solution is to have leaders that also have interacted with the craziness of the world and survived to tell the tale.
If someone knows why the modern fad narrative is false, they can make the arguments for God best.
Some retired military men make excellent priests. They come with an understanding of mission, duty, and life and death consequences.
I was glad Gavin defined love. This word is used by the liberal socialist so-called Christians to defend what they do. I believe the love they talk of is love of self and to love others is to affirm their self-love. They don’t realise that we must replaced self-love with the love of God.
Gavin simply trips out one cliche after another. None of it is evidenced. Everything is just his opinion. It’s gutter press type journalism.
I wish Christianity could renormalize near where Gavin’s understanding is today rather than all of his side roads getting there. We all need to start at a solid base rather than bouncing here and there and following some yahoo’s faith journey. It’s all about the faith destination.
And yet, because of his testimony, there’s an opportunity for people to learn from his mistakes.
The path into Jungian-narrative-spirituality is not clearly marked, so its awfully easy for sincere believers to get quite far along before they realize something is off. Think about some of the scraps of creative liturgy that were cited. What is wrong with referring to our Lord in new ways, ways that call attention to his wonderful works and still remain faithful to all that he’s revealed about himself? The obvious answer is “Nothing.” But those of us who have witnessed a diabolical tap-dance into heresy (yes, I believe that is the correct word) need to find ways to explain to those who haven’t where the boundaries must lie and why.
The uninitiated are slow to suspect that some of these creative expressions and sensitive language choices are actually about rejecting the omitted doctrines, often anything that makes clear that our faith is not a human construct, but has been revealed by God within human history.
He’s not allowed to give his opinion, state his observation?
Most of us here take the product of seminaries as clear proof of what Gavin is talking about.
You’re welcome to your opinion as well, but all you’ve done is engage in namecalling…
Ignoring him normally works well.
Ahhh. It’s all good. It’s the overly fawning posts that trigger me. I can see how many of my edgy out of bounce posts might trigger others but after the good elect folks have run many of us out of our churches as we remained silent and political correct here is a forum where we can let others know how we really think. It’s called feedback (or lashing out). Still surprised there isn’t more participation.
What a really odd response. All that Gavin does is call people names! And of course he is allowed to give his opinion. But to just trot out cliches about ‘cultural marxism’ and ‘gayification’ and ‘feminisation’ and ‘welbyisation’ is just lacking in any kind of evidence or maturity. I assumed a ‘Bishop’ would have a greater maturity than he displays here.
“All that Gavin does is call people names!”
It seems to me you’re doing what you’re accusing him of.
You may not understand what he means by those terms, but most of us do. Drive-by namecalling is not going to change our opinion of him or what he’s saying.
So you don’t like what he’s saying. Fine. Next. Moving on…
You are still missing the point. He is not *evidencing* what he is saying, and so it doesn’t very have much credibility.
And I understand those terms he is using – they are cheap name calling terms. It’s very poor journalism.
Please don’t be repetitive…
Ahh I see..you don’t actually understand what journalism is…
Paul, I understand that you don’t agree with Gavin and dislike what he has to say. But to my mind the examples you’ve cited are phrases that creatively identify movements and groups with specific beliefs and goals.
In an age when language is often used to obscure rather than to make clear, I find Gavin’s ability to be precise refreshing, helpful, and maybe even crucial. Nevertheless, I’m sure there are many who aren’t wholly clear on what each of these terms is trying to get at (maybe “welbyisation” would be a good example, because I’m not wholly clear on that myself). In all sincerity, I’d LOVE to see Gavin put together a little glossary of terms. I’m sure it would be an interesting and informative read!
And of course none of those terms he uses have any bearing on the real world of Jesus Christ ….
They are often staffed by wannabe theologians who aren’t clever enough to get into real academia, but they get respect and hope their comfortable posts will be stepping stones to something better- rarely are they committed to gospel proclamation or pastoral ministry, let alone training others for it.
You were wondering what about episode 666? Invite Michael Curry to the show.
Bp. Curry isn’t so bad. He is just shallow. Very shallow.
Respectfully, don’t get me started on Curry!
I’m sad that so many of Gavin’s remarks were lost to technical glitches. I especially appreciated his clarity in speaking of “holy compassion” rather than “love” (which is such an ambiguous term in our times). Also feel that his identification of the move from holy compassion to power redistribution is spot on.
I encounter many Evangelicals who lack the ability to recognize what is happening behind the fine-sounding words of liberal Anglicans. More clarity is needed about “progressive Christianity” and its actual beliefs.