A 19th century missionary (Anthony Norris Groves) tried hard to encapsulate a principle on this issue. Something like this from memory.
“I would rather remain in fellowship with those with whom I seriously disagree, for the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them. Than part with them and by doing so kill that spark.”
And in this fractious age, where there do appear to me to be quite a lot of obvious wolves wearing sheeps’ clothing. that’s pretty hard to live by.
My reading of Matthew 18 is that any final departing is a collective decision. Individually we can do two things. Firstly, do our level best to resolve the issue with the person or persons involved. Secondly alert our collective leadership about the issue.
Then we are subject to the view of that collective leadership.
As an active believer in the value of dissent as a matter of conscience, I feel free to depart myself. I’ve spent time away. But I’ve never left the collective I’ve been a part of for over 50 years.
That’s been over issues which I’ve seen as bigotry. And let me be clear. I think bigotry shows that there is something unorthodox in the practical interpretation of belief, regardless of how apparently orthodox that profession of their faith may appear to be.
But I’ve discovered that hanging in, however much it hurts, has been worth it.
Loving “enemies” and forgiving 70 times 7? Gosh they are hard! But sometimes I’ve found I was wrong, despite my belief that I was being principled. That’s a hard lesson too.
An added complications, of course, is who gets to decide which things are 'Essentials' and which are 'Non-essentials'?
What might be a non-negotiable to a Pentecostal, say, might be a 'non-essential' to a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a ...
An inerrantist conservative evangelical is going to have a different set of 'Essentials' to a liberal Protestant mainliner.
I think we'd all agree with 'In all things Charity,' but so often there seems precious little of that.
My own Church is going through a very sore patch with a grievous schism between jurisdictions. We can't point the finger at any one else nor from our own glasshouse throw stones.
It doesn’t depend on denominations. Some folks seem to belong to the suspicious dimension, characterised by Black Adder as “witch sniffers pursweivant”!
I think it’s a pernicious form of self-righteousness. And I agree we all need to watch out for that sin.
It doesn’t depend on denominations. Some folks seem to belong to the suspicious dimension, characterised by Black Adder as “witch sniffers pursweivant”!
I think it’s a pernicious form of self-righteousness. And I agree we all need to watch out for that sin.
Amen! I think it’s showing up in politics as well nowadays as well (possibly especially when politics has become people’s religion…).
I'm not sure how we can end up with non-institutional churches/Christianity.
Even if we had a small group of people meeting in a garden shed we'd soon see them developing informal 'councils' and debates to define what and what not to believe.
Or what made them distinctive from a similar group meeting in another shed down the road.
As soon as we have more than 'two or three' we are going to end up with creeds and definitions.
Heck, even if we say, 'Our group is non-creedal' that in itself is some kind of 'creedal' position- 'Our creed is not to have a creed..'
As a member of a non-creedal denomination, I feel obliged to point out that 'Our group is non-creedal' is not in itself any kind of 'creedal' position, since it says nothing about what we believe - only that as a policy, we don't use institutional statements of belief.
I'm very pleased to hear that, as my wife once got thrown out of a group that, describing itself as tolerant of all, in fact strongly rejected both credal beliefs and those who held them.
I used to be part of a group that put a great deal of stress on 'covenant relationships'.
In reality we had no more 'covenantal' a relationship than anyone else. It became a 'control' thing.
There are healthy and unhealthy ways of applying these things.
It's unrealistic, I think, to expect the kind of intense and 'committed' vow-making relationships that exist in monastic communities in parish or congregational settings.
In the group I was in, 'breaking convenant' was seen as a very serious sin. It even became somewhat cult-like and we were told to 'shun' those who had apparently done so - although I never did that. I kept in touch with people who'd left and was always pleasant towards them when I met them - apart from in one instance but I quickly made amends.
However we organise ourselves we need elasticity, grace and generosity of spirit.
I hasten to add that the schism I'm referring to is at macro Big C level between Moscow and Constantinople rather than at parish level - although individual parishes are affected by it, of course.
Mercifully, it's not affected our parish in any way but I know of parishes where it's had an impact.
An added complications, of course, is who gets to decide which things are 'Essentials' and which are 'Non-essentials'?
What might be a non-negotiable to a Pentecostal, say, might be a 'non-essential' to a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a ...
An inerrantist conservative evangelical is going to have a different set of 'Essentials' to a liberal Protestant mainliner.
I think we'd all agree with 'In all things Charity,' but so often there seems precious little of that.
My own Church is going through a very sore patch with a grievous schism between jurisdictions. We can't point the finger at any one else nor from our own glasshouse throw stones.
I think a lot of it is mission-driven. I was at a liberal Methodist Church, we could have Muslims sharing with the work of a soup kitchen. And they could visit our worship services, got along fine. That's charity. We don't need to talk theological beefs, don't need to argue over who Jesus is, don't need to get into bickers. That's not the goal, the telos of this particular gathering.
[Similarly, I'm with a very liberal Episcopal Church now with an out and proud lesbian preacher. She's wonderful, by the way. And we were talking about working with another Episcopal church in the same city that's mostly composed of immigrants and refugees, the focus of the work is ministry to refugees. Now, the leadership of that church is quite conservative, probably opposed to the very notion of women preaching, let alone gay women preaching, etc. But they got along fine because the common task was taking care of people. See how that works?]
It all depends on what the purpose of the gathering is. If you know what you're doing, you can tell where the lines are, and it will - I suspect - fall into place pretty cleanly. Just be respectful.
How is she your Archbishop when the Church in Wales is Disestablished?
Does she believe in traditional credal orthodox Christianity? 😉
In what ways is she 'excellent'?
I know very little about her but have heard some rumblings from conservative clergy who are worried lest she compel them to fly the Pride flag from the church tower.
A 19th century missionary (Anthony Norris Groves) tried hard to encapsulate a principle on this issue. Something like this from memory.
“I would rather remain in fellowship with those with whom I seriously disagree, for the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them. Than part with them and by doing so kill that spark.”
Thanks for that. Two of my close friends are right-wingers, Christians, and I often struggle to 'remain in fellowship' with them. I imagine they believe their 'spark' is inextinguishable. The point for me is to stay connected and avoid yet another hardening of some kind of dualistic polarisation. It helps to retain the courage of my own convictions; not always easy.
How is she your Archbishop when the Church in Wales is Disestablished?
She is "mine" in the sense that I identify with the people in the community and CinW ministry area. Of course I'm not a CinW member.
Does she believe in traditional credal orthodox Christianity? 😉
I have no reason to believe she does not.
[quote}In what ways is she 'excellent'? [/quote] She seems to be a genuine human being who appears to relate well to people. When she was still 'only' Bishop of Monmouth she personally and unexpectedly replied to an email I sent to her. And the impression I get is that has been working hard to rectify the problems of her Diocese and is now doing the same for the Province. She gave an excellent sermon at last week's Governing Body: https://www.churchinwales.org.uk/en/news-and-events/archbishops-presidential-address-to-governing-body/
I know very little about her but have heard some rumblings from conservative clergy who are worried lest she compel them to fly the Pride flag from the church tower.
Yes, but on the other hand I have heard and read interviews with her in which she's said she wish people would stop concentrating on her gender and sexuality as these aren't the important things!
I know very little about her but have heard some rumblings from conservative clergy who are worried lest she compel them to fly the Pride flag from the church tower.
The one I'm thinking of could do with doing so - whatever line people take on this particular Epiphanies issue.
I was pleased when they sought ordination in the CinW as I thought it indicated they'd moved on from their 'revivalist' background. Visiting their parish a number of times and watching a number of services online I soon realised that they hadn't.
Mercifully, their congregation don't know what they are on about and carry on as they've always done ...
I know very little about her but have heard some rumblings from conservative clergy who are worried lest she compel them to fly the Pride flag from the church tower.
Have they considered growing up?
Indeed. I generally hear such comments as saying much more about those who make them than those about whom they are made.
I'm CiW and Archbishop Cherry is my Archbishop but not my bishop as I'm further west
I'd agree with Baptist Trainfan I think. I gather Archbishop Cherry went to Monmouth diocese at a difficult time and has succeeded in pulling things together from what I heard. I'm hoping she can do the same for Wales as a whole. Heaven knows we've got enough problems and it seems to me that the problems in Bangor seem to be in the cathedral itself rather than in the diocese but I could be wrong
My own church has a tower and I've seen the Union flag, the Welsh flag, the Cross of St David and that of the CiW but not any others flown ! It depends who is brave enough to go to the top of the tower and do battle with seagulls!!
I kid you not
In general I'm hopeful although we shall have to see what we shall see of course
A 19th century missionary (Anthony Norris Groves) tried hard to encapsulate a principle on this issue. Something like this from memory.
“I would rather remain in fellowship with those with whom I seriously disagree, for the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them. Than part with them and by doing so kill that spark.” ...
That sounds great, and indeed, it is particularly remarkable for its date and its context of a cluster of small and closely related ecclesial households with collectively quite a fissiparous reputation within which it was uttered, but for 2026 I am not quite as encouraged by that as other shipmates may feel I ought to be.
We had a big row about something where I am a few years ago, which for many on both sides of the row was an issue of principle. The lesson I hope I eventually learnt from this is that the true command is to remain in love and fellowship with a Christian or group of Christians one disagrees with, disapproves of or thinks is/are wrong NOT 'in spite of ' the issue that divides BUT 'irrespective of' it.
"For the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them" is not enough. Inherent in that very statement, however expressed, is condescension, 'even though I am enlightened and you are not, I will still force myself to love you because it is my compassionate duty to'.
A few background realisations in the process have included:-
a. There is a long history of Christians splitting with one another, sometimes of things that matter but all too often, on things that do not.
b. Nobody's sense of his or her own intellectual or spiritual integrity should be so fragile as to assume it is somehow contaminated by being associated with other people they disagree with, even those whose opinions they abhor. If that were the case, how could Jesus have been prepared to be incarnate at all?
c. Jesus commands us to love our brothers and sisters, both collectively and individually. That is because the other/s is/are someone he loves and has chosen, not because I have. viz St Paul's simple challenge at Romans 14:4 - 'Who are you to judge the servant of another?'.
d. However sure I might be on any of the issues that divide people, if people are divided on it, the line between the sides is probably in God's eyes, against the time scale of eternity, and objectively, a lot less obvious that it appears to me. So, however convinced one is, at least allow for the possibility that 'the other side' might actually be right, even if not necessarily for the reason they think they are.
I recognise that this is all easier to say than to live by.
I am sure also, though, there will be shipmates who will be horrified by what I have said, or will take the line that this is OK for a lot of issues on which people divide themselves but not X, Y, Z or whichever is the one they feel is really, really important because that one is "an Essential'.
Comments
“I would rather remain in fellowship with those with whom I seriously disagree, for the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them. Than part with them and by doing so kill that spark.”
And in this fractious age, where there do appear to me to be quite a lot of obvious wolves wearing sheeps’ clothing. that’s pretty hard to live by.
My reading of Matthew 18 is that any final departing is a collective decision. Individually we can do two things. Firstly, do our level best to resolve the issue with the person or persons involved. Secondly alert our collective leadership about the issue.
Then we are subject to the view of that collective leadership.
As an active believer in the value of dissent as a matter of conscience, I feel free to depart myself. I’ve spent time away. But I’ve never left the collective I’ve been a part of for over 50 years.
That’s been over issues which I’ve seen as bigotry. And let me be clear. I think bigotry shows that there is something unorthodox in the practical interpretation of belief, regardless of how apparently orthodox that profession of their faith may appear to be.
But I’ve discovered that hanging in, however much it hurts, has been worth it.
Loving “enemies” and forgiving 70 times 7? Gosh they are hard! But sometimes I’ve found I was wrong, despite my belief that I was being principled. That’s a hard lesson too.
What might be a non-negotiable to a Pentecostal, say, might be a 'non-essential' to a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a ...
An inerrantist conservative evangelical is going to have a different set of 'Essentials' to a liberal Protestant mainliner.
I think we'd all agree with 'In all things Charity,' but so often there seems precious little of that.
My own Church is going through a very sore patch with a grievous schism between jurisdictions. We can't point the finger at any one else nor from our own glasshouse throw stones.
It doesn’t depend on denominations. Some folks seem to belong to the suspicious dimension, characterised by Black Adder as “witch sniffers pursweivant”!
I think it’s a pernicious form of self-righteousness. And I agree we all need to watch out for that sin.
Amen! I think it’s showing up in politics as well nowadays as well (possibly especially when politics has become people’s religion…).
Conversely, in c.2000, some were stressing the thought that the churches were in a "covenant relationship" with each other.
Because one can have non-evangelical nonconformists (quite a few Methodists and United Reformed folk, for a start) and evangelical Anglicans.
In reality we had no more 'covenantal' a relationship than anyone else. It became a 'control' thing.
There are healthy and unhealthy ways of applying these things.
It's unrealistic, I think, to expect the kind of intense and 'committed' vow-making relationships that exist in monastic communities in parish or congregational settings.
In the group I was in, 'breaking convenant' was seen as a very serious sin. It even became somewhat cult-like and we were told to 'shun' those who had apparently done so - although I never did that. I kept in touch with people who'd left and was always pleasant towards them when I met them - apart from in one instance but I quickly made amends.
However we organise ourselves we need elasticity, grace and generosity of spirit.
Mind you, the early dissenters did (of necessity) have a very strong covenant relationship within their churches.
True. The propensity for arguing remained however. “We may not agree about everything but we agree they have got it wrong!”
I’m not sure there was that much safety in numbers.
Of course.
@Barnabas62 - that too.
I hasten to add that the schism I'm referring to is at macro Big C level between Moscow and Constantinople rather than at parish level - although individual parishes are affected by it, of course.
Mercifully, it's not affected our parish in any way but I know of parishes where it's had an impact.
I think a lot of it is mission-driven. I was at a liberal Methodist Church, we could have Muslims sharing with the work of a soup kitchen. And they could visit our worship services, got along fine. That's charity. We don't need to talk theological beefs, don't need to argue over who Jesus is, don't need to get into bickers. That's not the goal, the telos of this particular gathering.
[Similarly, I'm with a very liberal Episcopal Church now with an out and proud lesbian preacher. She's wonderful, by the way. And we were talking about working with another Episcopal church in the same city that's mostly composed of immigrants and refugees, the focus of the work is ministry to refugees. Now, the leadership of that church is quite conservative, probably opposed to the very notion of women preaching, let alone gay women preaching, etc. But they got along fine because the common task was taking care of people. See how that works?]
It all depends on what the purpose of the gathering is. If you know what you're doing, you can tell where the lines are, and it will - I suspect - fall into place pretty cleanly. Just be respectful.
Things get more complicated if we go further than that.
Yep. And that's why it's important to talk about things before you do them. And mind your boundaries.
Does she believe in traditional credal orthodox Christianity? 😉
In what ways is she 'excellent'?
I know very little about her but have heard some rumblings from conservative clergy who are worried lest she compel them to fly the Pride flag from the church tower.
Thanks for that. Two of my close friends are right-wingers, Christians, and I often struggle to 'remain in fellowship' with them. I imagine they believe their 'spark' is inextinguishable. The point for me is to stay connected and avoid yet another hardening of some kind of dualistic polarisation. It helps to retain the courage of my own convictions; not always easy.
I have no reason to believe she does not.
[quote}In what ways is she 'excellent'? [/quote] She seems to be a genuine human being who appears to relate well to people. When she was still 'only' Bishop of Monmouth she personally and unexpectedly replied to an email I sent to her. And the impression I get is that has been working hard to rectify the problems of her Diocese and is now doing the same for the Province. She gave an excellent sermon at last week's Governing Body: https://www.churchinwales.org.uk/en/news-and-events/archbishops-presidential-address-to-governing-body/
Yes, but on the other hand I have heard and read interviews with her in which she's said she wish people would stop concentrating on her gender and sexuality as these aren't the important things!
Have they considered growing up?
I was pleased when they sought ordination in the CinW as I thought it indicated they'd moved on from their 'revivalist' background. Visiting their parish a number of times and watching a number of services online I soon realised that they hadn't.
Mercifully, their congregation don't know what they are on about and carry on as they've always done ...
In good Anglican style.
They've got a very good choir, mind.
I'd agree with Baptist Trainfan I think. I gather Archbishop Cherry went to Monmouth diocese at a difficult time and has succeeded in pulling things together from what I heard. I'm hoping she can do the same for Wales as a whole. Heaven knows we've got enough problems and it seems to me that the problems in Bangor seem to be in the cathedral itself rather than in the diocese but I could be wrong
My own church has a tower and I've seen the Union flag, the Welsh flag, the Cross of St David and that of the CiW but not any others flown ! It depends who is brave enough to go to the top of the tower and do battle with seagulls!!
I kid you not
In general I'm hopeful although we shall have to see what we shall see of course
We had a big row about something where I am a few years ago, which for many on both sides of the row was an issue of principle. The lesson I hope I eventually learnt from this is that the true command is to remain in love and fellowship with a Christian or group of Christians one disagrees with, disapproves of or thinks is/are wrong NOT 'in spite of ' the issue that divides BUT 'irrespective of' it.
"For the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them" is not enough. Inherent in that very statement, however expressed, is condescension, 'even though I am enlightened and you are not, I will still force myself to love you because it is my compassionate duty to'.
A few background realisations in the process have included:-
a. There is a long history of Christians splitting with one another, sometimes of things that matter but all too often, on things that do not.
b. Nobody's sense of his or her own intellectual or spiritual integrity should be so fragile as to assume it is somehow contaminated by being associated with other people they disagree with, even those whose opinions they abhor. If that were the case, how could Jesus have been prepared to be incarnate at all?
c. Jesus commands us to love our brothers and sisters, both collectively and individually. That is because the other/s is/are someone he loves and has chosen, not because I have. viz St Paul's simple challenge at Romans 14:4 - 'Who are you to judge the servant of another?'.
d. However sure I might be on any of the issues that divide people, if people are divided on it, the line between the sides is probably in God's eyes, against the time scale of eternity, and objectively, a lot less obvious that it appears to me. So, however convinced one is, at least allow for the possibility that 'the other side' might actually be right, even if not necessarily for the reason they think they are.
I recognise that this is all easier to say than to live by.
I am sure also, though, there will be shipmates who will be horrified by what I have said, or will take the line that this is OK for a lot of issues on which people divide themselves but not X, Y, Z or whichever is the one they feel is really, really important because that one is "an Essential'.