Wycliffe Hall has been in the news recently, and it's annoying for the following reasons:
1. A high proportion of the stuff that is being said is untrue and just straight malicious.
2. The effect that this is likely to have is to make the college more conservative in its intake, which is what no-one really wants. Well, there might be someone who wanted it, but I honestly can't think who that is unless it's someone who doesn't want less conservative theological students trained.
3. I really feel for the people caught up in the flak, especially for Richard Turnbull.
Here's Richard Turnbull's article about what he is trying to do at Wycliffe. And here's a quote from Chris Sugden (not at Wycliffe, but he seems to have a decent understanding of it) on the Sunday programme on Radio 4.
Richard Turnbull comes from parish ministry and wanted to change the culture of what had been really a sort of free-spirited academic collective in common with all Oxford colleges. I think it is a culture change situation in the institution which is being led by the Council which the chief executive is being asked to take through. The culture of Oxford academics is very conservative. And it is a culture change in the college that is obviously providing some degree of discomfort. That is the struggle.
There is a far greater division than those being suggested in the discussions at Wycliffe Hall. For the major division is between those who believe that the Gospel enables people to be transformed through the power of Christ, through his work and the presence of the Holy Spirit and those who in the end of the day do not believe that happens and that what we have is a sort of religiosity of the English people and life that has to be managed and its worst excesses curbed. People have said that are two religions currently in the Church of England and that is not very far from the truth.
12 comments:
Is this the same Chris Sugden who signed it's ‘not really a covenant’ covenant? If so anything he says can be taken with a pinch of salt.
I'm charitable enough to believe that you weren't meaning to say that the difference between a free-spirited academic college and an applied parish ministry college is identical to a difference between fake religion and the gospel. That's how I read it, so do you want to say that's not what you meant?
I don't get where this "it's not really a covenant" thing came from. Well, apart from Tom Wright. It was a covenant between the people who signed it, who represented a variety of different positions in evangelicalism and many of whom hadn't worked together before.
Oh, and ds - you're right. I don't saying those differences were the same. There isn't really a thematic progression between the two paragrpaphs, and I don't think the second is especially related to the issues at Wycliffe.
That is an interesting viewpoint Custard but unfortunately that is not what the text says.
It is entitled 'A Covenant for the Church of England'. A covenant would suggest an agreement between all members of the Church of England that was binding and this is not that in any shape or form. The writers obviously thought covenant was a sexy word and used it and by doing so killed off it’s credibility. They should have used something along the lines of a ‘manifesto by a group of annoyed evangelicals for the Church of England’. As I said the judgement of Chris Sugden has been shown to faulty recently so his ‘wise’ words are probably not that wise.
The test for Wycliffe will be what happens to the remaining staff. If any more leave in the next year then it will be obvious that the appointment of the new principal and vice-principal was silly beyond belief. At the moment it looks like a high risk policy that may be going belly up or may not. Anyway it is Ridley or St John's for me now.
I think the thing with Chris Sugden is that he seems to know what is going on here.
The test for Wycliffe will be what happens to the remaining staff. If any more leave in the next year then it will be obvious that the appointment of the new principal and vice-principal was silly beyond belief.
I'd agree, with the caveat that if there is disciplinary action going on, and that results in staff leaving, that doesn't count.
Anyway it is Ridley or St John's for me now.
Completely understandable. With the data you have, you'd be mad to try to come here unless you thought an extreme conservative takeover was a good thing. That's part of the reason I'm annoyed about it.
If the disciplinary action is over inappropriate behaviour (money or sex etc) and they leave, then it can only reflect well on Wycliffe. If it is about someone disagreeing with the principal, then it will reflect very badly on the Wycliffe. If the person disciplined leaves and ends up in another senior post very quickly, then it will be devastating for Wycliffe.
Do we ever get to find out what the disciplinary action was for, except in the account of an anonymous piece of paper which is known to be incorrect on a significant proportion of facts and heavily spun against the college?
I suspect not.
If the disciplinary action is considered unfair, then it will end up in an industrial tribunal and then we will all know. If the person leaves and gets a good position, elsewhere then implicitly, the college paid them off and were in the wrong. If they leave and an unemployed then the college are vindicated. As in all these situations it is weighted against the employer.
That's all rather assuming that we aren't Christians. I'd hope we'd act like Christians and not go to court over internal disputes.
If someone has done wrong, they shouldn't need disciplinary proceedings to get rid of them, and many Christians would consider paying someone off to be better than openly going to court with them.
There's also the distinct possibility that some people offering good jobs are foolish.
Better to say that "if they leave, get a good position, and then show themselves to be of such a character that the accusations cannot possibly have been right or to repent in such a way that it is clear that the college could have got repentance and restoration without such discipline" then the college was very foolish.
Otherwise, I don't think we can know without inside information.
'The effect that this is likely to have is to make the college more conservative in its intake, which is what no-one really wants. Well, there might be someone who wanted it, but I honestly can't think who that is unless it's someone who doesn't want less conservative theological students trained.'
Being more or less conservative isn't a matter of personal preference or taste; it's a matter of truth. Conservatives believe that conservative Christianity is true and that liberal Christianity is false where it disagrees with conservative Christianity (and it does). So while some conservatives won't want less-conservative theological students trained (thinking that they shouldn't be ordained), others will say that Wycliffe's coming more in line with the truth can only be a good thing, whether or not it leads to less-conservative theological students trained. (Another factor is that some conservatives have problems with Oak Hill and would like a conservative alternative to Oak Hill.)
I am surprised that you would suggest Christians should bribe (what else could it be)a to avoid a court action. This would suggest there might be a skeleton in the closet.
Given the rather strong words Paul has to say about lawsuits among believers in 1 Corinthians 6, as well as the rather obvious hostility that the press can bring to situations for both parties, it's often considered the lesser of two evils. In pretty much any walk of life.
Post a Comment