Chelmsford ordination protest

39 Responses to “Chelmsford ordination protest”

1. John Richardson says:
   

   Richard Hooker had no discernible cartooning skills (indeed, no discernible sense of humour). However, I believe he speaks words of wisdom and balance to this situation:

   “[...] presbyters must not grudge to continue subject unto their bishops, unless they will proudly oppose themselves against that which God himself ordained by his apostles, and the whole Church of Christ approveth and judgeth most convenient. On the other side bishops, albeit they may avouch with conformity of truth that their authority hath thus descended even from the very apostles themselves, yet the absolute and everlasting continuance of it they cannot say that any command of the Lord doth enjoin; and therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath power by universal consent upon urgent cause to take it away, if thereunto she be constrained through the proud, tyrannical, and unreformable dealings of her bishops, whose regiment she hath thus long delighted in, because she hath found it good and requisite to be so governed. Wherefore lest bishops forget themselves, as if none on earth had authority to touch their states, let them continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of custom, whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be shewed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves. Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters, but to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the Church hath power to take from them.” (The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, VII.v.8)

   July 18th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
2. Sue says:
   

   What I can’t understand is, if he felt the way he did, why did he swear canonical obedience to the bishop? Having done so, well he should do what the bishop says in this matter, as last time I looked having your photo taken and receiving communion were both perfectly “lawful and honest” activities.

   July 18th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
3. joe says:
   

   I think they should all dress up as Jedi Knights and Can-can down the aisle. That’d be a creative protest.

   Dressing up in tweed jackets and polished brown shoes hardly counts as a protest, unless it is a ‘dress as a college lecturer if you hate the bishop’ protest. Which it could be, I’ll accept.

   July 18th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
4. Ormonde Plater says:
   

   I’m sure Hooker speaks words of wisdom, but I wish I could understand what he was saying.

   July 18th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
5. jody says:
   

   yes, I got as far as ‘good and requisite so to be governed’ and then it descended into ‘blah blah, blah blah blah blah’.

   it is of course summarily captured by your cartoon Dave.

   July 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
6. Aaron Orear says:
   

   The creative protest I hear almost weekly is a loud “And with thy Spirit” while everyone else is saying, “And also with you.”

   July 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
7. John Richardson says:
   

   I am tempted to say if you can’t understand Richard Hooker, you probably aren’t in a position to comment on the rights or wrongs of the situation in Chelmsford.

   Oh heck, I’ll just say it anyway!

   July 18th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
8. Miss Dagurreotype says:
   

   I don’t think that worship is the best time to protest, better to do it at the annual meeting, but if my rector ever got the idea to do the contemporary Our Father, I would probably quietly protest by saying, “Our Farther who art in heaven . . . as I can’t stand the language of the contemporary version. At least the NZ version is still poetical, something that can’t be said for the contemporary one.

   July 18th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
9. Speaker of Truth says:
   

   [...] I thank Dave of The Cartoon Blog (which is often more serious than one might imagine) for this story relating to the Church of England diocese of Chelmsford, to which both of us are in some way attached – that is, we are both Anglicans living and worshipping within it. It seems that the Bishop of Chelmsford refused to ordain an ordination candidate, Richard Wood, because this candidate refused to take communion from him. I was actually at the service on 1st July where Richard was to have been ordained, supporting another candidate; Richard’s name was on the service sheet, and the service went ahead without him, with no explanation given. [...]

   July 18th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
10. Order of Santa Ignora says:
    

    [...] Which is why this guy confuses me. Um, he’ll swear obedience to the bish, but he won’t eat crackers from the bish? [...]

    July 18th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
11. ~c. says:
    

    I would think it would have been more prophetic to refuse the ordination and receive the communion. As it happened sounds selfish and a clear power play…not a good starting point for ordained ministry.

    July 18th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
12. Raspberry Rabbit says:
    

    Actually he sounds a fairly typical curate in my experience – has his finger on the pulse of the kingdom but has no sense of perspective. Needs some time on the naughty step. Should be fed cakes by elderly women until he calms down. Might need a wife.

    July 18th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
13. thomas bushnell, bsg says:
    

    seems to me that the bishop had it about right; what flabbergasts me is that the candidate got so far. i am appalled by the casual attitude with which some take their ordination vows, and it is appalling to think that this guy actually thought it was ok to break his ordination vows in the very same service in which he took them.

    July 19th, 2007 at 7:27 am
14. jody says:
    

    it’s less that I don’t understand Hooker, and more that I understand him very well. He seems to get rolled out now and then when these issues come up and it is not good enough.

    the 39 Articles say that Richard was perfectly free to receive ordination and communion from +Gladwin, regardless of what he thought of his theology, the sacraments are still effective. To choose not to then seems to me to be churlish.

    July 19th, 2007 at 8:07 am
15. John Richardson says:
    

    Jody, I’m glad to see you understand Hooker. You seemed to be wanting to give the impression that you couldn’t be bothered.

    I quoted Hooker because I believe what he says is wise, not because he is an ‘authority’ to be ‘rolled out’, although that indeed often happens. In this case, I feel that what he says is worth engaging with. (‘Blah, blah, blah’ didn’t quite suggest that had occurred.)

    The 39 Articles, on the other hand, do have some authority. Sadly, though, they often get less attention in the details than they should.

    Richard was, of course, perfectly free to receive ordination and communion from +Gladwin. His choice not to may seem churlish to you. It was not, however, based on being churlish, but on very careful consideration over a long period of time.

    To decide which was truly the case would require going over the facts, not all of which are currently in the public domain.

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:04 am
16. Russ says:
    

    10 ways to protest mildly in church …

    1 Sit down when everyone else is standing up
    2 Stand up when everyone else is sitting down
    3 Listen to your iPod during the sermon (or other appropriate portable music device)
    4 Sing the hymns and songs, but start with verse 2 when everyone else is singing verse 1
    5 Put your hand up when the banns are read, but explain you were just stretching
    6 During the peace, great no-one but wear a placard proclaiming “Peace to the lot of you”
    7 Refuse to let anyone sit in your pew/on the seats next to you, explaining they’re saved for people who’ve left the church … but might come back. One day.
    8 Yawn audibly during readings
    9 Put a note reading “I protest” into the offering plate/bag/box/dustbin
    10 Bring beach accoutrements and a folding chair and set yourself up in a corner as if you’re on the beach. Look surprised when people question this.

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:26 am
17. Chris says:
    

    I was just tickled by the banner on Dagenham Parish Church’s web site:

    “Celebrating Grace, Seeking Grace.”

    Keep looking, folks!

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:27 am
18. Russ says:
    

    Typo alert: in number 6 above, “great” should of course read “greet”. Apologgies.

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:27 am
19. Kate P says:
    

    Not church-related but creative protesting: There was a very strict rule about wearing only white socks at my daughter’s junior school. She has many idiosyncrasies, and one of them is not liking white socks. Luckily we found some white socks with coloured toes and heels, invisible inside shoes, so she was able to go to school with “secret coloured socks” on. Never did find out from the head what effect it would have had on her learning if she had worn coloured ones….

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:33 am
20. joe says:
    

    Really, John – don’t you have any semi-serious websites to spread your wears onto?

    You have a spectrum of choices before you: on one extreme, your ordination candidate could have applied to be ordained in another diocese with an ‘acceptable’ bishop. At the other, maybe you both need to consider your position within a church which you do not respect the authority of those in the hierarchy above you.

    Either way, your bleating sounds to the rest of us like the cries of a spoilt brat.

    Anyway, back to the cartoons.

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:52 am
21. joe says:
    

    Oh dear, I seem to have lost the ability to type coherently. Apologies.

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:53 am
22. chris clark says:
    

    I end up saddened by the whole affair and suspect there is more under the surface than we know about.

    Gladwin is a bit of a loose canon (sic) but obeying your bish is very important …otherwise we are not a catholic and apostolic church but a group of individuals bound together with a few others (or in some case none) with whom we agree. The trend to individualism would have alarmed Hooker. Yes there are issues of principle which are important but not quite as many as some people think I suspect.

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:55 am
23. karen says:
    

    Hooker also said “”Words must be taken according to the matter whereof they are uttered.” (The Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity IV.II.7)

    Seems to me, Hooker would want discussion; his position was between the Puritans and the Catholic tradition. He was something of a mediator by character. In the above ‘Lawes’ he was seeking a middle way through the different factions and may have come to view that the piety of the people is unaffected by their leaders. He appears to have understood the dangers of Donatism.

    Writing in The Long European Reformation, Peter G Wallace observes that,

    ‘By the 1580s, English Puritans had come to embrace a predestinarian Calvinism that assumed God had divided humankind into a small band of self-aware “elect” who would be saved, and a vast majority of reprobates who would be damned. Predestinarianism inspired sober collective religiosity among the chosen, whose pious dress and manners, along with their sometimes overbearing righteousness, alienated them from their less godly neighbours.’(p.135)

    July 19th, 2007 at 11:47 am
24. John Richardson says:
    

    It might just be me, but I get the impression that the extent to which people don’t agree with what Richard Wood has done is proportional to the extent to which they don’t disagree with what John Gladwin is doing.

    If I’m wrong, perhaps folks would like to post with some alternative suggestions about what might be the right approach.

    July 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
25. Daniel says:
    

    Some more ways to protest in church:
    1. Eat a lot of raw garlic the night before going
    2. Place yourself directly in front of the preacher, then – during sermon – at certain points, shake your head mildly and with a little smile silently form the words “no,no,no,no”.
    3. Arrive late and decide to sit in the middle of a row in front. After a couple of minutes, get up to visit the restroom. Come back. Leave a bit early. Remember to move with a hunched back, and whisper excuses loudly to everyone you pass.
    4. Loudly ask for a receipt at the collection, explaining that you know about instances where, in this church, collections have been “misplaced” before.
    5. When leaving after the service, explain to everyone who shakes your hand that you are the preachers new partner, and just wanted to check out where he/she works.
    6. Get up during collection and make your own collection for a “worthier cause”.
    7. Pretend to be very “blessed” in an evangelical sort of way: Every time the priest pauses, takes a breath, or when there is silence in the service, shout any of the following: “hallaluja!”, “more, Lord, more!”, “gloooooory!”, “shaka bahaia coconut” or “Annoint him, Lord, pleeease annoint him!”

    July 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
26. joe says:
    

    Surely it is down to you to explain why you think the Bishop’s opinions on this matter are worthy of schism.

    July 19th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
27. John Richardson says:
    

    Joe,

    I have. See, Lost Confidence in Chelmsford.

    After you’ve had a chance to read this, I would refer back to my earlier comment.

    July 19th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
28. joe says:
    

    No, all you’ve done is state that the Bishop is not orthodox compared to your personal understanding of orthodoxy. Which is fine, except that you don’t seem to want to enter a conversation about what is or isn’t orthodox and why you seem to want to insist that this issue is the test above all others.

    According to you, the Bishop has said that there needs to be “a period of reception and reflection”, which seems to me to be a reasonable way to proceed.

    Again, the question you have to answer is why you are wasting time defending yourself on this cartoon blog and similarly why you are so quick to castigate others as liberals when they challenge you about your behaviour. I’m not particularly interested in talking to you about sexual ethics, to be honest. I am far more worried about the church’s lack of teaching on commitment and service of the poor – which after all really is a biblical imperitive – because everyone wants to spend all their time talking about sex.

    July 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
29. Grandmère Mimi says:
    

    The cartoon is excellent, Dave.

    July 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
30. John Richardson says:
    

    Hi Joe

    Basically you don’t agree with my position vis a vis +John Gladwin’s position, so you won’t agree with Richard Wood’s actions either. We’ve had lots of conversations with him over this, but basically got nowhere.

    If you’re cool with his position on this, fair enough.

    On the poor, justice, etc, my trip to Kenya gave me a few ideas. Have a listen to my third talk, if you want to know about whether I’m prepared to do that engagement. You might also read this post, though you probably won’t like it!

    Sorry if you feel a cartoon blog isn’t the place for this discussion. I hope that I’m not wasting my time. I do find myself wondering, though, why everyone seems so tense and ratty all the time (not just me!).

    July 19th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
31. joe says:
    

    I don’t think anywhere is the place for this conversation if you are going to make snap judgements about what I think before I’ve actually told you.

    July 19th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
32. John Richardson says:
    

    Joe, you probably won’t tell me, but I’d be happy to hear, since I’ve apparently got it wrong.

    July 19th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
33. Iconoclast says:
    

    Dave,
    You mention at the beginning of this thread that its ‘been a long while since you have had a go at Reform”. Are there any other groups you love to have a go at? Any others whose consciences are worth kicking?

    Iconclast

    July 19th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
34. Peter Kirk says:
    

    I get the impression that the extent to which people don’t agree with what Richard Wood has done is proportional to the extent to which they don’t disagree with what John Gladwin is doing.

    Not true of me, John. In my opinion, Bishop Gladwin should not be supporting an organisation whose aims are wrong. But that does not excuse Richard Wood and others who refuse to have communion with them, because Article 26 of the 39 makes it clear that the bishop’s personal actions should not be a barrier to communion.

    July 19th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
35. jody says:
    

    I disagree with +Gladwin, although I think he should be allowed to explore the issues surrounding sexuality, as we all should, without being questioned on ‘soundness’. I understand that +Gladwin’s thoughts have gone beyond exploration, but then this is what thinking will do for you.

    I also disagree with Mr Wood for all the reasons rehearsed here.

    July 20th, 2007 at 8:24 am
36. Clare says:
    

    Gosh, I just read that letter of protest and my first thoughts were that I’d never read anything quite so ungracious. (But actually I probably have.) I’m still struggling to find anything of the love and grace of God in it however. And as for making it public…..

    I tell you – all these shennanigans just add weight to making me not only want to leave the church but also seriously to question my faith. After all if those who profess to love and serve God can behave like this …. Hardly a good evangelistic tool then.

    July 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am
37. Rachel says:
    

    I’m thinking party poppers might be a good way of showing appreciation during a sermon if they say something really groovy, like about childrens rights or something (I heard a sermon on Tuesday on this subject and was disappointed not to have any party poppers on me)

    However, my protest at church was to leave church and go to the Quakers instead – less wrangling.

    July 20th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
38. Mark Bennet says:
    

    Protest loudly by using the wrong version of the Lord’s Prayer in an assertive voice – trad in a modern service and vice versa.

    And more seriously – out of the Arian controversy came not only creeds and doctrines, but canons of Church order too – out of the experience of division and heresy – which rather discouraged people from choosing their own bishop. And that was reflecting back on a situation where there were Arian bishops with whom “orthodox” priests would rightly have disagreed.

    July 20th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
39. Mary says:
    

    Re: 5 Put your hand up when the banns are read, but explain you were just stretching

    We were a small but select band at church on Sunday evening. 20 of us, in a circle, round the temporary altar. Opposite me in the circle were the future bride and groom. Their banns of marriage were read out…

    I WAS SOOOOO TEMPTED!!!!!!!

    July 31st, 2007 at 5:42 pm