What is in Kelvin's Head?

A Welcome Forest of Deans

11/01/2016

Last weekend an open letter emerged from within the Church of England which asked the two archbishops in England to take a message to the Primates’ Conference acknowledging that the Church has failed in its duty of care to LGBTI members of the Body of Christ worldwide and calling for repentance.

The whole letter is here: https://lettertoarchbishops.wordpress.com/

Others were asked to sign it to show their support and my name was one of the first to be added on Sunday morning when I heard about it. (It was addressed to Our Archbishops which was a bit problematic but sometimes you just have to go with the spirit rather than the letter of the law).

I was particularly encouraged to see that this letter originated from a couple of people from within the Evangelical tradition in the church.

I was also encouraged to see how many Deans of Cathedrals in England had signed the letter.

Here’s a map showing in green those deans who have signed.

There may be errors to correct or amendments to make – please let me know in the comments below. Nothing should be presumed about the red dots other than that there doesn’t seem to be a record of a dean there who has signed. Some cathedrals may be looking for a dean and some deans may be out of contact and not have heard about it. Some names may yet be added.

I believe that Durham has no dean in post at present so have marked that in a different colour. I’ll change any others that are like that if anyone lets me know in the comments below.

There are two cathedrals in London which seem to be on top of one another on the map – both of them are marked in green.

Rather encouraging to see the green shoots of inclusion springing up, I think and to see leadership coming from England’s cathedrals.

[google_maps id=”14812″]

UPDATES
Worcester added (missed off in original list)
Wells and Durham marked as vacant.
Southwell marked as vacant.
Rochester marked as vacant.

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