What is in Kelvin's Head?

Review of Predictions for 2018

31/12/2018

On 1 January I made predictions for the coming year. Time to see how I got on.

1 – General Election in the second half of the year.

Well, no we didn’t and the government linger on. Not right

2 – “…and as the polls close, our exit poll predicts that the Conservative Party is unlikely to be able to form a new government…”

Well, the government did linger on of a fashion. N/A

3 – The next but one leader of the Conservative Party becomes Ruth Davidson MP.

Too soon to tell. Not right yet.

4 – The hipsters get bored of vinyl and discover cameras with actual, you know, film.

In September, I happened upon three or four hipster types from Denmark in the cathedral grounds taking photographs for a fashion shoot in Belgium. They had stopped shooting for a moment…. to reload film canasters. Right – but likely to become more common yet.

5 – No date for a new referendum on Scottish Independence.

No date for a new referendum and no great call for one either. Right.

6 – No progress for LGBT affirming Anglicans in England.

Sadly correct. Right

7 – Progress for LGBT affirming Anglicans elsewhere, particularly Brazil.

Stunning progress in Brazil – marriage agreed by huge majority on synod floor. (And who else saw that coming!) Right.

8 – Increasing realisation that sexual abuse is part of church culture. #churchtoo #metoo.

Yes – meetings happening all over the place trying to work out how to respond. Few coherent policies yet. Right.

9 – FTSE lower at the end of 2018 than it is at the beginning. (7687)

As I write this the FTSE is at 6728 – worst year in a decade. Right

10 – The end of the beard.

Those with style, manners and culture have seen the error of their ways and shaved. A few young and misguided types cling on. Completely and utterly right.

Not a bad year, I think.

5 responses to “Heresy hunting”

Nick Brindley

14/05/2014

It is probably helpful to be clear about the distinction between “dogma” (which is best understood as the definition of orthodoxy and of heresy, of the things it is mandatory to affirm and the things it is forbidden to affirm) and “church order” (the rules about how people are to conduct themselves). These are related but by no means the same thing.

“Doctrine” is a third thing again, to my mind. It is the body of teaching that the church affirms but is much more extensive and changeable than dogma.

Of particular relevance is who has the authority to pronounce on these things. Denominational authorities quite properly establish church law and discipline (this needs to be done and there’s nobody else to do it) but would go beyond their proper sphere (in my view) if they tried to establish new definitions in the field of dogma.

Reply
Andrew

14/05/2014

I feel the need to separate praxis and doctrine, but I suppose that is probably a minor heresy in itself, in a church that hides its doctrine in its liturgy. Although I suppose the deftness of the ‘McCarthy Liturgy’ has maybe sidestepped that pitfall as deftly as an 18th century non-juring bishop side-stepping western orthodoxy and the rest…

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

15/05/2014

To a degree I think it is a matter of tradition. Anglican churches have tended (and it is only a tendency) to insist of orthopraxis. Church of Scotland churches have tended (same health warning) to emphasise orthodoxy of belief, call it doctrine or dogma. St Andrews is not of course a C or S institution, but it used to be, certainly in my day, and to a degree in yours, heavily steeped in C of S ethos. St Mary’s trained C of S ministers and that was ALL the training they got, because then they knew Orthodoxy.

Reply
Jimmy

15/05/2014

The links on this post have led me to think of this –

The Inner Party – The Outer Party – The Proles.

The model demands tight control of the middle class, with ambitious Outer Party members neutralised via promotion to the Inner Party or “reintegration” by Miniluv, while proles can be allowed intellectual (and sexual) freedom because they lack intellect. Winston nonetheless believed that “the future belonged to the proles”. Wikipedia.

Reply
Allan Ronald

19/05/2014

There was most definitely a C of S ethos at St Andrews in my day [67-71]. Robin Buchanan-Smith was running a packed college chapel and one president of the SRC and one president of the Union were St Mary’s men who went on to ordination and, in one case, to be Moderator of the Kirk. Perhaps they got their orthodoxy from Matthew Black at St Mary’s and their skill in future clerical politics from their student posts…….

Reply