Britain’s leading evangelical college is facing increasing criticism, and not just from outside detractors.

Since a new principal took over last year at Wycliffe Hall, one of seven private Christian schools at the University of Oxford, more than half of its faculty have resigned. Critics charge . . . → Read More: Wycliffe Hall – A Flashback]]> Here’s the Christian Today report from five years ago.

Britain’s leading evangelical college is facing increasing criticism, and not just from outside detractors.

Since a new principal took over last year at Wycliffe Hall, one of seven private Christian schools at the University of Oxford, more than half of its faculty have resigned. Critics charge new head Richard Turnbull with an abrasive management style and a narrowing of the college’s theological vision.

A letter authorized by Alister McGrath and two other former principals said Turnbull’s continuing leadership would turn away prospective faculty and students and saddle the school with a “limited focus on one strand of evangelicalism.”

Adding to the school’s troubles is a university panel review, released in September, which concluded that Wycliffe and Oxford’s other Christian halls were not providing a liberal education in line with Oxford’s values. The report recommended that Oxford regulate the curriculum of its permanent private halls. Teaching that squelches “the spirit of free and critical enquiry and debate” could cause a hall to lose its license.

Wycliffe Hall achieved permanent status with Oxford in 1996, thanks to the work of former principal McGrath, who significantly raised Wycliffe’s profile. Throughout its 130-year history, the school has produced a number of notable alumni, including Regent College professor and CT senior editor J.I. Packer, Bishop N. T. Wright, and former member of Parliament Jonathan Aitken.

But the evangelical Anglican seminary, which annually matriculates about 140 students, has undergone a seismic shift since McGrath’s resignation two years ago. One council member and 8 of 13 faculty members have resigned, including two of Wycliffe’s leading voices, vice principal David Wenham and professor Elaine Storkey, who produces the BBC’s religious radio program Thought for the Day.

Supporters say Turnbull is fulfilling the institutional mandate given him when he was hired. In a letter sent to the Church of England’s newspaper, three student body presidents commended Turnbull for ushering in “more contemporary forms of management,” consistent with changes across the entire university. The students also wrote that Turnbull had “sharpened the focus of [Wycliffe's] training without narrowing it” and was “appointing staff from across the evangelical spectrum.”

Likewise, in a letter to The Guardian, Aitken wrote that the vast majority of Wycliffe’s students and council members stood behind Turnbull.

For his part, Turnbull told CT that “Wycliffe remains a college where the range and breadth of the evangelical tradition is welcomed and affirmed amongst both staff and students.”

The Church of England has moved its 2009 inspection of Wycliffe up by a year, to next October. While the college’s ability to enroll undergraduate students for Oxford degrees is expected to survive, the bigger question is whether its administration will gain the support of faculty members.

“If the turbulence that is currently going on does settle down … [then] this may be seen as a turning point at which Wycliffe went from one approach of evangelicalism to another approach that is just as well,” said Justin Thacker, head of theology for the U.K.’s Evangelical Alliance. “When Paul and Barnabas split over the issue of John Mark … there were two missions instead of just one. There have been divisions—and they have been painful divisions—but I hope that at the end of the day, each group that splits off goes to do so in the service of Jesus Christ.”

I’ll be reporting more on the de facto suspension of Richard Turnbull on tonight’s Anglican TV.

Interestingly she quotes the Spitzer research which is slightly dubious. Shame she didn’t refer to Jones and Yarhouse.

A conduct hearing last year ruled that Mrs Pilkington had fallen short of professional standards by making “premature and reckless” diagnoses.

An appeal panel yesterday threw out a number of adverse findings against Mrs Pilkington but found that she had failed to take enough steps . . . → Read More: Lesley Pilkington’s Appeal Fails]]> Quelle Surprise. John Bingham in the Telegraph has the news.

A conduct hearing last year ruled that Mrs Pilkington had fallen short of professional standards by making “premature and reckless” diagnoses.

An appeal panel yesterday threw out a number of adverse findings against Mrs Pilkington but found that she had failed to take enough steps to ensure that Mr Strudwick fully understood what her counselling entailed and “precise belief system that underpinned it”.

The appeal panel ruled that the controversial therapy itself did not necessarily breach professional standards but added: “There is a wide range of opinion and beliefs among those who call themselves Christians.

“Mrs Pilkington wrongly and negligently jumped to the conclusion that Mrs Strudwick properly understood her therapeutic model and the belief system underlying it.”

But Mrs Pilkington, who was supported by the Christian legal Centre and the barrister Paul Diamond, said that her case would have a chilling effect on others who wished to practice the technique.

“They simply won’t operate in this area at all, they won’t offer the possibility of change,” she said.

“Christians will think twice about using traditional biblical Christian counselling methods.

“It will definitely close people down, it will definitely engender a climate of fear.

“There is a wider agenda that diversity and equality, which is supposed to be what our society upholds, is upheld for everyone except for those who have traditional Judeo-Christian values, I think that is very disturbing.

“People need to understand what is happening and think about what sort of society we want.”

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “People who practise reparative therapy are increasingly pushed out of the public sphere.

“A truly tolerant society would allow for this therapy to continue not to treat it with suspicion and those who practise it with suspicion.”

Now, you can read the ruling and appeal for yourself online and it’s worth doing so to cut through the spin from both sides. It’s very clear that:

• BACP dismissed Strudwick’s initial intention of having LP banned for conducting Reparative Therapy. They weren’t really interested in arguments from either side on the validity or otherwise of this kind of counselling approach.
• The real issue was, from BACP’s perspective, the way that LP exhibited very poor counselling practice by not keeping clear personal boundaries, letting sessions over-run and imposing interpretations on her client even when the client denied the events that the counsellor claimed had happened in the client’s life.
• Neither side is willing to accept the above – the liberals seem to think that BACP ruled that Reparative Therapy was wrong (it didn’t) and the conservatives seem to think that LP was victimised for practising Reparative Therapy (she wasn’t).

Now, this paragraph coming up is not going to make me many friends, but it absolutely needs to be said. When you read the Christian Concern report on the appeal having read the full ruling from BACP, the impression you get is wilful blindness to the clear evidence that LP is not a good counsellor. It strikes me that conservatives need to be honest about this fact – once you get past the issues of whether Strudwick entrapped her (he did) and the legal issues as to whether he therefore should be treated as a client with a valid complaint (I don’t agree with BACP here), the reports of how LP conducted the session show basic disregard for the fundamentals of counselling practice. No wonder BACP deregistered her and insisted that she undergo further training before being readmitted to BACP.

Taking the Christian Concern stance towards the ruling is not the Christian way to approach this. As Christians we need to be honest about our failings and not try to cover them up. Most pastors know that this kind of behaviour (avoiding the truth and trying to blame someone else) is just an attempt to avoid our own sin and culpability. It’s not good spiritual discipline and it just damages our growth in grace.

There said it.

Please feel free to comment on the case below.

HT – Simon B

THE Church of Ireland will debate gay relationships tomorrow after a decision to stop the debate taking place was effectively overturned following behind the scenes negotiations in Dublin today.

A motion brought to the church’s General Synod by two bishops to re-affirm the church’s teaching that marriage . . . → Read More: Irish General Synod does a U-Turn]]> Who’d have thought? This is not going away…

THE Church of Ireland will debate gay relationships tomorrow after a decision to stop the debate taking place was effectively overturned following behind the scenes negotiations in Dublin today.

A motion brought to the church’s General Synod by two bishops to re-affirm the church’s teaching that marriage is only between a man and a woman was ruled out of order by the Archbishop of Armagh, Alan Harper, on Thursday in dramatic scenes which led to two other motions about same-sex relationships being withdrawn.

But between Thursday night and Friday morning, conservative members of the church succeeded in bundling all three motions together and re-introducing them for discussion on Saturday morning under Standing Order 31 (d) in what could be a bitter debate.

Tomorrow’s motions will allow for the church to publicly discuss homosexuality for the first time since the News Letter revealed last September that Dean Tom Gordon had become the first serving Church of Ireland cleric to enter a civil partnership.

The three original motions had been presented by the liberal Archbishop of Dublin, Michael Jackson, and the evangelical bishop of Down and Dromore, Harold Miller in a public show of unity.

But on Thursday as the first motion came to be debated the liberal Bishop of Cashel and Ossory, Michael Burrows, raised a point of order about his fellow bishops’ motion which led to Archbishop Alan Harper ruling that it could not be discussed.

Bishop Burrows, who was aware of Dean Gordon’s civil partnership before it took place, was openly jeered by large sections of the synod in Dublin’s Christchurch Cathedral but applauded loudly by others in a public sign of the considerable strain within the church.

Reintroducing the motion has infuriated some liberal members of the church who yesterday believed that they had defeated a motion which they believe will make it harder to get the church to accept gay relationships at a later point.

The Newsletter report is interesting as it names Bishop Burrows, not Dean Nigel Dunne, as the instigator of the Point of Order. Bishop Burrows is not a popular boy at the moment in the Irish Church.

The most significant thing however is that the new motion has exactly the same wording as the old motion. To do this the proposers will have to have been absolutely sure that any further Points of Order similar to the ones yesterday would fail (so that in effect the arguments I made earlier today will be used if necessary to stamp on any attempt to block the motion). This is to all intents and purposes a clear signal that Archbishop Harper got it seriously wrong in agreeing to the Point of Order and makes it much more likely that the motion will pass and that with it the official orthodox stance of the Church of Ireland on human sexuality will be reaffirmed.

The key signal that the conservatives are winning this battle in Ireland will be the way that liberal blogs spew about this over the next few hours. Watch this space…

Apparently there have been a number of complaints about one of the advertisements His Grace carried on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage. He has been sent all manner of official papers, formal documentation and threatening notices which demand answers to sundry questions by a certain deadline. He is instructed by the . . . → Read More: Advertising Standards Authority ‘Persecutes Cranmer’]]> This is extraordinary!

Apparently there have been a number of complaints about one of the advertisements His Grace carried on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage. He has been sent all manner of official papers, formal documentation and threatening notices which demand answers to sundry questions by a certain deadline. He is instructed by the ‘Investigations Executive’ of this inquisition to keep all this confidential.

…

The advertisement in question is reproduced above. His Grace would like to make it clear to the ASA that he is reproducing this ‘offensive and homophobic’ advertisement as an educative illustration of allegedly offensive and homophobic advertising; not as an offensive and homophobic advertisement per se. Naturally, His Grace apologises in advance to all those who find this educative illustration offensive and homophobic, for it is never his intention to be either offensive or homophobic. But those of you who do find it offensive and homophobic are free not to visit His Grace’s blog whenever you wish.

The specific complaint relates to:

c. An online ad, seen on the blog of ‘Archbishop Cranmer’, featured photos of couples on their wedding day on the first frame. The second frame stated “I do”. The third frame stated “70% of people* say keep marriage as it is … (Source: ComRes poll for Catholic Voices)”. The final frame stated “Help us keep the true meaning of marriage. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION Click here … Coalition for Marriage”.

The ‘Issue’ here is that 24 anonymous complainants, ‘including the Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group’ (doubtless disclosd to give weight to the allegations), challenged whether the claim ’70% of people say keep marriage as it is’. However, His Grace is not required to respond to that point, since he did not conduct the research. But it transpires that 10 of these 24 complainants objected that the ads were ‘offensive’ and ‘homophobic’, and he is requested to respond to these allegations ‘under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 4.1 (Harm and offence)’.

He is informed:

We intend to deal with the complaint as a formal investigation, which means it will be considered by the ASA Council. We will then draft a recommendation for the Council based on your response to us. Once the Council has made a decision, the adjudication will be published on our website.

…

We require you to explain your rationale for the ad and comment specifically on the points raised in the attached complaint notification

They need to see ‘robust documentary evidence to back the claims and a clear explanation from you of its relevance and why you think it substantiates the claims. It is not enough to send references to or abstracts of documents and papers without sending the reports in full and specifically highlighting the relevant parts explaining why they are relevant to the matter in hand’.

…

Well, His Grace won’t be censored. He is further minded to provide the ASA with a copy of his well-publicised ‘bottom line’ (from the right-hand margin):

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse.

Unless, of course, we are no longer free, our democracy is no longer liberal, and it is now an offence to express the moderate view of the majority and promote the orthodox teaching of the Church of England Established.

I am speechless. What is possibly offensive about the advert? The research is quoted from a ComRes poll, one of the leading agencies in the country. In that survey people were asked a specific question, namely “Do you agree or disagree with the statement ‘Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman’?”. You can see from the data table I’ve linked to that 70% of people did indeed answer “Yes”.

This is nothing short of censorship. Nothing in the advert is factually incorrect or offensive. It is an advert to campaign to simply keep the law as it is. It is outrageous to suggest it is homophobic and the fact that the ASA are even considering such an allegation is ludicrous and displays evidence of a lack of even basic research by them before making the demand of Cranmer that they have done.

If you’re interested in downloading the advert to use on your own website, simply click here. Alternatively, you might like the one below.

Let the reader understand.

A MOTION affirming traditional church teaching on marriage could not be taken at the Church of Ireland General Synod in Dublin yesterday, on a point of order. Speakers argued that as . . . → Read More: Procedural Nonsense in the Church of Ireland]]> Yesterday’s vote in the Church of Ireland’s General Synod on Motion 8 was withdrawn on a proceedural technicality, as reported in the Irish Times.

A MOTION affirming traditional church teaching on marriage could not be taken at the Church of Ireland General Synod in Dublin yesterday, on a point of order. Speakers argued that as wording of motion 8A could be construed as proposing a doctrinal change, it ought to be a Bill not a motion.

The motion on Human Sexuality in the Context of Christian Belief stated that the church “continues to uphold its teaching that marriage is part of God’s creation and a holy mystery in which one man and one woman become one flesh, as provided for in Canon 31”.

It continued that the church “recognise for itself and of itself, no other understanding of marriage than that provided for in the totality of Canon 31”.

Raising the point of order, Dean of Cork Rev Nigel Dunne said that the church’s teaching on marriage “as expressed in Canon 31 stands in conflict with an understanding of same as expressed in Marriage Service Two in the Book of Common Prayer”.

He continued: “Canon 31 gives first place to the procreation and nurture of children. Marriage Service Two does not. Marriage Service Two is quite clear that sex and sexual intercourse is firstly to strengthen the relationship. The procreation of children comes second.” Motion 8A, he suggested, could “constitute a modification or alteration of doctrine” and ought not be considered as a motion but ought to be a Bill.

Following some debate on the matter the Church of Ireland primate and Synod president Archbishop Alan Harper, concerned with “the avoidance of doubt”, ruled that the motion not be taken. Related motions 8B and 8C were withdrawn by proposers Archbishop of Dublin Michael Jackson and the Bishop of Down and Dromore Harold Miller, who had also proposed motion 8A.

OK, let me spell out the alleged problem for you. Motion 8A read in part as follows.

The Church of Ireland continues to uphold its teaching that marriage is part of God’s creation and a holy mystery in which one man and one woman become one flesh, as provided for in Canon 31:

‘The Church of Ireland affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching that marriage is in its purpose a union permanent and life-long, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity’.

The argument therefore is this. Canon 31 describes the reasons for marriage as follows – (i) Procreation and Nurture of Children, (ii) Hallowing and Right Direction of Natural Instincts and (iii) Mutual Society, Help and Comfort. However, if you look at the second marriage service in the 2004 Book of Common Prayer, you find the reasons given as such:

Marriage was ordained that husband and wife may comfort and help each other, living faithfully together in plenty and in need, in sorrow and in joy.

It is intended that with delight and tenderness they may know each other in love, and through the joy of their bodily union they may strengthen the union of their hearts and lives.

It is intended that they may be blessed in the children they may have, in caring for them and in bringing them up in accordance with God’s will to his praise a

Basically, it’s the same three purposes, but in reverse order.

Now, the Dean of Cork, the Very Rev Nigel Dunne was claiming that the order in which these three come is vitally important. By stating so he was claiming that the ordering gives primacy, so that the reason which was stated first is the most important, the second the second most important and so on. If this is so, then Canon 31 has a different order of primacy then Marriage Service Two, and therefore implies a contradiction in the doctrine of the Church of Ireland.

Got that?

So many holes in that argument…

Firstly (and I’ll leave it to you to decide whether this is the most important argument), there is a huge assumption that the ordering of the reasons for marriage implies a primacy based on that ordering. Nothing in either Canon 31 or Marriage Service Two indicates as much. Marriage Service Two simply says, “It is intended… It is intended… It is intended…”. It’s the liturgical equivalent of a shopping list for the weekly trip to Tesco’s. The fact that you’ve put milk on the top of the list and bread half-way down doesn’t mean that you need milk more than you do bread, it just means that it was the first of the things that you needed to buy that you thought of. In the same way, the list of marital reasons given in Marriage Service Two isn’t a list of primacy, it’s simply a statement of completeness in its entirity.

Secondly, if there is a contradiction between Canon 31 and Marriage Service Two then it has existed since Marriage Service Two was introduced. It is not the fault of this motion, but rather the 2004 Irish Book of Common Prayer. One would think that such contradictions would have been identified during the process of compiling and editing the 2004 Prayer Book.

Thirdly, just look at Marriage Service One in the 2004 BCP. It has the following wording.

First, for the increase of mankind, according to the will of God, and for the due ordering of families and households, that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his
holy Name;

Secondly, for the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman, and for the avoidance of sin;

Thirdly, for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

This takes the order that Canon 31 has and is therefore the opposite order to Marriage Service Two. Does not the fact that this ordering is alongside Marriage Service Two in the 2004 BCP indicate beyond any doubt that the ordering is not one of primacy? Surely those who framed the 2004 BCP would have spotted such basic “mistakes”? The same “contradictions” occur in the Church of England between the marriage service in the 1662 BCP and Common Worship. Has anybody over the past decade once raised the issue that the reversed order of reasons for matrimony means there is contradictory doctrine? Has anybody done that in the Church of Ireland in the past eight years? If this was such a concern for Dean Nigel Dunne, why didn’t he point it out in 2004 when the new Irish BCP came in? To all intents and purposes, what Nigel Dunne did yesterday was to accuse the entire Committee behind the 2004 Irish BCP of being theological numpties who couldn’t spot a basic doctrinal contradiction sat right in front of them.

This wrecking Point of Order was a liturgical nonsense and didn’t have any substance to it. For the Irish Synod to agree to it means that they believe implicitly that their own 2004 BCP contains contradictory doctrine. I can’t understand why Archbishop Alan Harper let it stand, but then he isn’t exactly the most conservative of Primates.

All of this is probably very familiar to our friends over the Pond who have suffered this kind of legal nonsense for years (decades?) in TEC, actions which dragged it year by year towards the apostate nadir it now lies in.

By the way, did I mention that Dean Nigel Dunne is heavily involved with Changing Attitude Ireland? No? Who’d have thought…