Religion

The Anglican Church: From Orthodoxy to Anarchy

Allan Blanch’s well-written and widely-researched biography of Sir Marcus Loane, the first Australian-born Anglican Archbishop of Sydney and Primate of Australia, is important for reasons in addition to the most obvious purpose for which From Strength to Strength (2015) was produced: to describe in detail and celebrate the archbishop’s life and influence in the Diocese of Sydney and, to a lesser degree, in the national Church. While these aspects are of interest, particularly to those of us who knew the archbishop, and others inquiring into the twentieth-century history of the Anglican Church in Sydney and Australia (for whom the book would be required reading), or wanting to understand conservative Evangelicalism more generally, the biography has an even larger importance.

This essay appears in September’s Quadrant.
Click here to subscribe

It exposes a particular example of a phenomenon that has been nothing less than a scourge in Western civilisation for the last fifty years, and from which no institution, religious or secular, has been immune: the concentrated attack on those institutions’ history, heritage and traditions. This is an assault all the more insidious for being conducted from within the institutions.

The seeds of this destruction were sown in the counter-cultural movements of the later 1960s. But the concentrated and corrupting white-anting projects which ensued, in their multifarious and nefarious forms, have, typically, taken a generation or two for their agents’ work to have pervasive impact. What remains of the institutions has typically been turned into a contradiction of what they were established to be and of their essential character. The universities provide the clearest example of this dismantling process, recently given detailed analysis in relation to the local scene in Campus Meltdown: The Deepening Crisis in Australian Universities, edited by William Coleman.

Conservatives, by nature not given to activism and too inclined to abide complacently in the teaching that “all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well”, were caught either seriously napping, or blithely trusting that the iconoclasts would not do their worst—or, in the process of doing it, might have second thoughts, as the dire results became glaringly apparent. This serious miscalculation has taken us to the point, today, where it is unimaginable that what has been lost can ever be recovered. It is much easier to destroy an institution, through cancelling its history, traditions and heritage, than to create one.

What Mr Blanch’s study demonstrates is how a bishop deeply learned in and committed to one of the several schools of Christian faith and practice which, combined, have formed the character of Anglicanism over the centuries, was unable to prevent the ever-increasing assault, during his archiepiscopal reign and since, on generally recognisable Anglican theology, forms of worship and spirituality within the dominant Evangelical tradition of his diocese.

Sydney is the most famous and formidable representative in the global Anglican Communion of the Reformed character of a Church that was, from its beginning, both Catholic and Reformed. Even Church leaders from within the Evangelical tradition, such as Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher (warmly welcomed to St Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney in 1950), can write, insistently, of the Church of England, that:

We have no doctrine of our own—we only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic creeds, and those creeds we hold without addition or diminution. We stand firm on that rock.

The long-established practice in Canterbury of alternating between High Church and Low Church archbishops, in this most prominent of Anglican roles, speaks tellingly of the comprehensiveness of the Church. So Fisher, the Low Churchman, was followed by Michael Ramsey, from the Catholic wing. In our day, the Anglo-Catholic Rowan Williams has been succeeded by the Evangelical Justin Welby. Yet when we consider the churchmanship of Welby—who wears a mitre and Eucharistic vestments (banned in Sydney, while clergy wearing no robes at all are perfectly acceptable); who last year led the annual National Pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham and spoke afterwards of “the Mass” in which he had participated there, and of how “Mary leads us to Jesus”; who has the Roman Catholic priest, Father Nicolas Buttet, as his spiritual director and, for his prayer life, favours Catholic models from the Benedictine and Ignatian traditions—it is a tad difficult to discern any common ground between that contemporary expression of Anglican Evangelicalism and Sydney’s version of it.

Nonetheless, Marcus Loane showed that it was possible to combine an unswerving commitment to the principles of conservative Protestantism with a profound faithfulness to the history and tradition of Anglicanism, in all its forms. Of his friend, Archbishop Sir Philip Strong of Brisbane, Loane wrote: “He was an Anglo-Catholic at the altar; he was an Evangelical in the pulpit … Both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics saw in him the qualities of true saintliness.”

At the heart of Loane’s churchmanship was the Book of Common Prayer (the “better he knew it, the more he loved it”, Blanch writes), where, in such services as Matins and Evensong, we see the genius of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer drawing on the daily offices of the medieval Catholic Church (of Prime, Matins, Lauds, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline) to produce forms of daily worship in the vernacular—in the most numinous and memorable liturgical language in English that has ever been composed—for the laity, as well as the clergy.

Loane recognised wisely that if the Prayer Book were abandoned, “really significant losses would follow”. Yet, Blanch notes Marcia Cameron’s observation that “despite the Evangelicals’ insistence that the Book of Common Prayer should be part of the Fundamental Declarations” of their faith, “Sydney Evangelicals have led the way in abandoning the use of the Prayer Book, or any prayer book in their worship”.

Further, there was Loane’s contention that, because of the Prayer Book’s familiarity throughout the worldwide Communion, “when Anglicans went to church they knew what service pattern they would find there”. The “gatherings” or “meetings” that have taken the place of Prayer Book worship of any kind in many parishes in the Sydney Diocese today show the extent to which this cherished principle of common prayer has been deliberately repudiated.

Indeed, it has become a badge of honour to proclaim the rejection of the entire Anglican tradition. So, an inner-west suburban parish which describes itself, on its website, “as a Bible-believing church”, is quick to point out not only that “we’re not your typical church”, but “we’re certainly not your typical Anglican church”. The description of what their Sunday gatherings are like, including questions and comments segments, bears no relationship whatever to any recognisable Anglican order of service. Any confirmed Anglican, reasonably seeking, on a Sunday, a service of Holy Communion, would look in vain on this website and on the parish’s roadside noticeboard (and on those of many others in the diocese) for any indication of the administration of that sacrament: “The Lord’s own service in the Lord’s own house” as the little prayer book I was given on my confirmation described it.

The anarchic situation which Loane dreaded has become the norm: what he called “radical individualism and ecclesiastical lawlessness”, where “every parish did what was right in its own eyes”, are the inevitable result of the disposal of the ordered liturgy of common prayer. Even the Lord’s Prayer can be regarded with suspicion as being in a set liturgical form. For the archbishop, this situation revealed “an attitude that is un-Anglican”, leading to “worship confusion” and a squandering of “our great inheritance”.

Amongst those losses, in the dismal spirit of the broader revolutionary “cancel culture” of today, is the now widespread custom of Sydney diocesan parishes to erase the names of the saints to which they were dedicated. So, in my neighbourhood, St Aidan’s in Annandale has become “Village Church”; St Andrew’s in Summer Hill is now “Summer Hill Church”; St Michael’s in Surry Hills is “Vine Church”, and so on. Like deletions from the Soviet Encyclopaedia of persons who have become non-persons, the well-known saints of the Christian Bible and the Anglican liturgical calendar have been eliminated in a program that, obviously, is designed to eradicate the previously recognisable association of such parishes with their Anglican foundation and history.

The familiar irony of anarchic rebellion against allegedly oppressive orthodoxy is that, usually very swiftly, it takes upon itself a rigidity of conformity and its own set of predictable convictions that are at least as enforced and authoritarian as the former despised and rejected regimen. Nowhere, again, is this more clearly seen than in today’s universities, where the ancient and fiercely-defended tradition of freedom of thought and expression, of dissent and vigorous debate, has been overturned by a mandated insistence on “correct” views on such as race, gender and class which, should anyone so much as query, will lead to their “no-platforming” and Orwellian vaporisation.

So, as one goes from parish website to parish website in Sydney today, one is struck by the conformity of these non-conforming communities to a check-list of standard attributes: with the senior pastor, married with children, pictured in open-necked shirt, trained at Moore College, and with leisure interests that are peculiarly notable not so much for what they include (usually physical activity of some kind), but what appears to be all but universally excluded: any interest in reading or literature, in classical music or playing an instrument, in art, architecture, history—indeed, any of the humane pursuits that, for most educated people, make life worth living. The absence of literary interests is particularly striking in a supposedly Anglican context. You would look in vain for any minister who enjoys poetry, yet a distinctive feature of the priests and laity of the Anglican Communion, through the centuries, has been their distinguished and formidable contribution to our literary culture, from Shakespeare, to Donne and Herbert, through to T.S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis, W.H. Auden and R.S. Thomas, in the twentieth century, and, in our own day and country, the brilliant Tim Winton:

Most of [Winton’s] best friends are refugees from evangelical fundamentalism. He also admits a fondness for liturgical worship with bells and smells. “The sacrament of The Eucharist has become the central, the still point, if you will; I receive it on my knees and cross myself.”

The rich literary aspect of Anglican culture was conspicuously present in the minds of church leaders in Sydney’s recent past. Marcus Loane was a lover of poetry—he wrote his MA thesis, indeed, on “The Poetical Works of Thomas Gray”—and, amongst his successors, Donald Robinson was a skilled musician, widely read, too, in English literature and devoted to Anglican hymnody. Sir Marcus (although not musical in the same way) once said to me, of the modern choruses that his clergy were becoming so fond of, that they were “trash” and that his favourite hymn was “Jerusalem the golden”, translated by John Mason Neale (one of the formidable figures of the Oxford Movement) from the twelfth-century text of the monk, Bernard of Cluny. These Sydney Evangelicals were men of the Word and of words. One is reminded of the old adage: “No one reads his Bible well, who reads only his Bible.”

Two specific explanations of the anarchical situation which Archbishop Loane correctly foresaw and abhorred in his diocese (although he may not have imagined the extent to which it is apparent today) can be offered, in addition to the generally fertile ground for revolution against established institutions that has been the marked feature of Western civilisation over the last half-century

The first can be sourced from Moore College, where all Sydney ordinands are trained (another element in the narrowness of outlook of the Anglicanism of the diocese), and, in particular, from the long and very influential Principalship, from 1959 to 1985, of Dr Broughton Knox. The Trollopean element of Principal Knox and Archbishop Loane being brothers-in-law did not assuage the Archbishop’s well-founded apprehensions about the opposition to his idea of the Church that would be advanced by Knox to his trainee ministers: “I am afraid that he will try to push his policies in ways which will be very much to my discomfort,” Loane noted, and so it has turned out in the disappearance of Prayer Book Anglicanism from Sydney.

The second reason must be sourced from Archbishop Loane himself. He, with his deep learning about and immersion in the Book of Common Prayer, was able to reconcile that orthodox ecclesiastical heritage with his particularly pronounced Protestant theology. But for him to imagine that many others would be similarly capable of—or even interested in—achieving such a deft reconciliation was surely, always, a pious hope and, now, in a culture of studied repudiation of orthodoxy, it is all but unimaginable.

No one would suggest that any of the congregations, determinedly jettisoning their Anglican history and heritage and, specifically, the fundamental principle of common prayer, are not sincere about and committed to their mission. Yet, at the end of reading Allan Blanch’s excellent biography, one cannot help asking: At what point, in the devolution of a parish’s and, indeed, a diocese’s identity, is the position reached where it has so removed itself from what can generally be understood as the essential “marks” of the denominational organisation it theoretically belongs to, that claims—however minimal—to still be representative of it can no longer, in all reasonableness, be sustained?

Barry Spurr, Literary Editor of Quadrant, grew up in the Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn and has written extensively about Anglicanism and its expression in liturgy, in The Word in the Desert (1995); its literary influence, in Anglo-Catholic in Religion: T.S. Eliot and Christianity (2010), and on the spiritual life, in See the Virgin Blest (2007), an account of English poetry, through the centuries, devoted to the Virgin Mary

15 comments
  • Stephen Due

    City on a Hill (in Victoria) is so embarrassed about being Anglican that it neglects to mention the fact anywhere on its website. Although in my area it meets in St. Matthew’s Anglican Church, the website only says it meets at 230 McKillop Street. I phoned City on a Hill headquarters and was told that yes, they are Anglican churches, but prefer not to say so.

  • Stephen Due

    I was raised in a Church of England School where the boys attended chapel routinely. I wasn’t a Christian – my family were atheists. At fifteen I decided the Apostle’s Creed was beneath my dignity, and refused to say it with the other boys, though continuing to sing the hymns, and recite the Lord’s Prayer. Decades later it transpired that I had unknowingly left school with a priceless treasure, woefully disregarded then, but still securely in my possession in spite of the passage of time,
    Now the dear old Anglican church buildings, hallowed by the beautiful feet and the ascending prayers of generations, are no longer wanted. The glorious stained glass, sculpture and wood carving, the superb joinery and stonework, are all of no account these days.
    The liturgy is gone. The lovely old pipe organ is gathering dust. The entire corpus of English church music, giving glory to God – riches accumulated over hundreds of years, the work of some of the greatest composers the world has seen, or ever will see – has been thrown away, being considered of no value.
    This is cultural vandalism on a vast scale. It is ignorance. It is robbery, taking from future generations a priceless heritage, and giving them instead a meaningless auditorium indistinguishable from a concert hall, and ‘worship’ hardly worthy of the name. In short, the church has been secularised – having, it seems, found Christianity too difficult.

  • Bernard

    Stephen, my Anglican church. Is doing just that. A beautiful church with superb stained-glass windows and a rich history going back to the beginnings of the colony in NSW, the minister has said several times that if it were up to him, he would get rid of the stained-glass windows. The church is embarrassed about representing its faith through beauty and despises the past for having done so. Now, this minister has bullied the church in selling superb land adjoining the building to use the funds in order to build a new building, a bland auditorium that speaks to nobody and puts the minister at the centre and as the focus of its worship, for the minister has the illusion that he is a great communicator and needs a stage to exercise his gift. Lost is all acknowledgement of and feeling for the efforts of our church seeking to worship God and represent its faith in beauty, the visual beauty, architectural beauty, the beauty of superb music. We need a bland building lacking in distinction to perform a bland liturgy and preach sermons totally lacking in any ability to inspire. I could go on, and doing so kindles the desire to fight such vandalism, but I don’t think that I would be telling you anything that you don’t know.

  • Ian MacDougall

    Bernard:
    “Now, this minister has bullied the church in selling superb land adjoining the building to use the funds in order to build a new building, a bland auditorium that speaks to nobody and puts the minister at the centre and as the focus of its worship… ”
    Don’t blame this poor bunny. There was a clerical coup quite early on in the history of Christianity. All Christian church buildings are designed to focus the attention of the congregation on the priest/ minister/ parson/ whatever, the only exceptions to my knowledge being the circular buildings of the Society of Friends (The Quakers.)
    The early Christian Church was a radical organisation for its time, and Yeshua bar Joseph, its founder and inspiration, was a gifted revolutionary leader, but with a difference. To Jewish youth, particularly those inclined hot-headedly to take on the might of Rome, he gave a warning against armed insurrection, as in the Sermon on the Mount (hardly ever referred to by modern evangelicals). But the greater the following Jeshua built, the more uneasy the Romans became. Just to prove who was boss, they arrested him anyway, and tried and publicly executed him by crucifixion: designed by the Romans to be as painful a death as was possible to devise.
    In Matthew’s highly unlikely account the “whole (Jewish) people” say: “His blood be upon us and on our children” (27:25) This afterwards became known as the Blood Libel, and provided the excuse for many a European pogrom.
    The Jewish insurrection known as the Bar Kokhba Revolt (66–73 CE) proved Yeshua right. But St Paul had spotted a new angle: sin and redemption, which influenced later gospel writers and fitted Yeshua’s story into classical Greek theology rather brilliantly. Christ came to die, to pay for the sins of the world. It was an idea that rapidly took hold in the Greek communities around the Mediterranean. The idea that at all of humanity could somehow be corrupted via the persuasive power of a talking snake back in the days of Genesis 3 raised a few more questions than it answered, but was somehow lost in the rush. And the rest became history.
    The evangelical is relieved of having to obey the hard bits of the Gospel. Just believe in redemption from sin. Easy peasy.

  • DG

    OTOH, an acquaintance of mine had an interesting encounter with a modern Anglican church in an inner Sydney suburb. Somehow he’d gotten on its mailing list and was invited to an ‘Alpha’ course. He dutifully attended. However, as he asked questions that were outside the playbook (not rude, just difficult theological and/or philosophical questions, he being a philosopher), he was asked to leave! To leave the course that the course convener had asked him to attend in the first place. Truly, something odd has overtaking the Anglican church.

  • bendle1

    Regarding Ian MacDougall’s comment above: some clarification is required as we are dealing with one of the most critical periods in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bar Kokhba Revolt was actually the third of the great Jewish Wars that broke out in the first 150 years of Roman Imperial rule.
    1. The First Jewish–Roman War (AD 66–73) The Jews rose in revolt against the Romans in Judea near the end of Nero’s reign. After some early success they were utterly defeated by the Roman Army under Vespasian and then Titus. The rebels were killed en masse, sold into slavery, or driven into exile; Jerusalem was besieged and devastated; the Temple, the centre of the Jewish religion, was razed to the ground. Over 100,000 people died, 97,000 were captured and enslaved. Decapitated, without its Temple, Judaism was forced to reshape itself into the Rabbinic form it has had ever since.
    2. The Kitos War (AD 115–117) This war erupted amongst the Jewish diaspora, swollen by refugees from the First War. It arose out of the mutual hatred between the Jews and the Greeks around the Eastern Mediterranean. The Jews launched coordinated attacks on Roman forces and the Greek populations in Alexandria, Cyrenaica (Libya), Cyprus, and elsewhere. Roman and Greek temples and innumerable civic buildings were systematically destroyed. In retaliation, the Jewish population of Alexandria was exterminated, as was the Jewish population of Cyprus, where Jews were henceforth banned upon threat of death. Hideous atrocities were reported, at least 500,000 died, and some regions were left totally depopulated.
    3. The Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132–136) This was the final conflict and it unfolded under the reign of Hadrian. The revolt was led by Simon bar Kokhba, who was recognized by Jewish leaders as the long-awaited Messiah. The rebels waged a terroristic guerrilla campaign, and established a short-lived independent state of Israel. Exasperated, the Romans brought in its elite legions and resorted to a war of extermination. Inevitably, the Jews were utterly defeated: some 580,000 died in the fighting, innumerable others died from hunger and disease, and many more were sold into slavery. The Romans instituted a policy of ethnic cleansing that drove the entire Jewish population out of Judea, renamed the region, and absorbed it into Syria.
    And so, in less than 70 years, this series of wars had brought ruin upon the Jewish people. With the Temple destroyed, the very heart of their faith had been torn out. Landless and leaderless, Judaism was forced onto a new path, orientated around the Rabbis and the holy texts. Forced to be a diaspora living in other people’s lands, the Jews suffered centuries of persecution and near extinction. It would be over 1900 years before the Jews would once again have a homeland.

  • Ian MacDougall

    bendle1. Thanks. I wish I could amend the posted text accordingly.

  • Stephen Due

    Dear Ian MacD, Surely if Matthew says they said “His blood be upon us” then they definitely did say that. Matthew knows what he’s doing. He controls the narrative. Scripture is not, after all, a science textbook or a modern work of history. I’d say the Jews definitely said what Matthew says they said, because otherwise (NB) the entire message of the Bible is lost. God Himself expressly said in a parable that the Jews, as tenants of His vineyard, would kill His Son – and God is never wrong.
    Re the talking snake, I’m not clear as to why exactly this is such a stumbling block. Why shouldn’t a snake talk if wants to? Talking-snake-denial could be an example of the Black Swan Fallacy. Maybe talking snakes died out due to speech being an evolutionary disadvantage? Talking too much and not getting on with biting people and injecting deadly poison….
    PS: My wife says what about the talking donkey?

  • Ian MacDougall

    Stephen:
    Stephen (& Mrs Due):
    This is what the Bible scholar Bart Ehrman has to say on the matter:
    “What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren’t simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren’t.”
    The Gospels were originally written in Greek and in the the order Mark c. AD 66–70 ,Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. There is no independent corroboration of anything in them from any other source.
    “I’d say the Jews definitely said what Matthew says they said, because otherwise (NB) the entire message of the Bible is lost. God Himself expressly said in a parable that the Jews, as tenants of His vineyard, would kill His Son – and God is never wrong.”
    You may believe that, but modern Jewish scholars have reached a different conclusion. That is that the gospel writer/s, whoever they were, wrote what they did to curry favour with the Romans (you know, the imperialists from across the sea in Italy who HAD crucified Yeshua bar Joseph) and to deflect Christian anger, blame and the rest of it onto the Jews, who had actually done their best to save him. “His blood be upon us and on our children” is highly unlikely to be a Jewish self-incrimination, and more likely IMHO to be a crude attempt by the committee of Christians who authored St Matthew’s Gospel to pin all the blame on the Jews.
    Up in the night sky there are at last count I saw 10^23 stars, and if our solar system is typical, that means 10^24 planets. But not only are we asked to believe in talking snakes and donkeys, but also that the creative intelligence behind all of the knowable Universe as studied by scientists, from galaxies down to sub-atomic wave-particle dualities, was into blood sacrifice. And not just that: sacrifice of part of his trinitarian self (ie Christ) to himself (ie Yahweh) as the other trinitarian part, to redeem humanity from the original sin (The Fall) brought about by that damned talking snake in the Garden of Eden around 4004 BCE.
    If you believe that cobbled-together hodge-podge, then I have a lovely Harbour Bridge to sell you: in Sydney. Going cheap, too.! But hurry! This offer cannot last…! Limited time only..! Never to be repeated…!
    .
    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693
    Wikipedia.

  • Bernard

    Apart from the above diatribe having little relation to the article under which it appears, I am not sure what to respond to in the above comment as there is so much that is pronounced as dogma beyond questioning.
    “There is no independent corroboration of anything in them from any other source.”
    Jesus is mentioned in a number of sources that, although they do not say much that is particularly significant, nevertheless, several of them have independent status, going back to Christian statements that are probably independent of the Gospels. They are independent testimony documenting the ambivalent attitude of Jewish and pagan contemporaries. They demonstrate that contemporaries in the first two centuries saw no reason to doubt the existence of Jesus and corroborate some of the details in the gospels. These are some of them: in the Talmus, baraitha Sanhedrin 43a; Tacitus’s Annals 15.44; Pliny Letters 10.96; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64; 20.200; strange statement by Mara bar Serapion (post AD73); Thallos’s Histories (retrieved through Georgius Syncellus). In addition to these, there are statements in some of the gnostic gospels that do not come from the Christian gospels.
    If the early Christians were doing anything to obtain favour from the Romans, they were thoroughly incompetent at it because they did, said and failed to do a number of things that they knew well could only attract Roman ire.
    Not sure why you are treating Ehrman’s dictums as sacred, for they are subject to questioning as anything else is, being expressions of his own biases, agendas and also knowledgeable expertise. His opus on The Da Vinci Code has very good sections. For a thorough account of what we know about Jesus and how we know it, Theissen & Merz The Historical Jesus is irreplaceable.
    I am not interested in continuing this as a conversation with someone who thinks that ending a turn with puerile, clichéd sarcasm is an intelligent way of going about things. I will not respond to anything further.

  • Ian MacDougall

    Bernard: Noted.

  • Stephen Due

    Ian MacD. I guess my question is: Why would I believe Bart Ehrman or modern Jewish scholars rather than the Bible? The scholars of today say nothing new from my perspective. I’ve got a library in my house containing thousands of books of biblical scholarship from about the 1850s to the present day. None of them contain any ideas newer than the third century. Skepticism about the Bible is not new. The same arguments have been endlessly reworked by succeeding generations. They do not, in my view mitigate against the veracity of the Bible.
    The Bible continues on – as it says it will – while the works of all these scholars perish in the sands of time like the works of Ozymandias. There has to be a reason why the Bible itself, regardless of the scholars, remains the foundational text of Western civilisation. And the reason is surely not that it gives the likes of Phillip Adams something to go on and on about for half a lifetime, when not giving expression to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
    I think, as indicated, that it has a lot to do with talking snakes – there are a lot of them ‘out there’. The effect of what they say is clearly to be seen, not only in biblical scholarship, but also in the collapse of civilisation into various versions of the vile situation we now see in Victoria i.e. rampant tyranny, blatant injustice, euthanasia of the elderly, slaughter of unborn children, corruption of morals, oppression of the poor, evil in high places. That’s how I see it, anyway.

  • Ian MacDougall

    Stephen:
    I suppose that in your collection of books you have a copy of the KJV with apocrypha included, illustrating the historical evolution of Holy Scripture. Those as you will be aware were the books considered too unreliable or disputable to be included in the final (man-made) collection that is the New Testament. Numerous ecumenical councils were required across the history of Christianity in Europe before the doctrine was settled to the extent it has been, but papal readjustments (eg Pope Francis recently got rid of Purgatory) show it to be still a work in progress.
    .
    As it happens, Cardinal Roger ‘Torquemada’ Franklin performs a similar role here as editor at this site, which as I have noted before, has many if not all the characteristics of a fundamentalist Calathumpian church. QO has a liberal ‘mission statement’ tucked away for form’s sake, but denied in practice. Franklin’s deletion of a comment of mine with the statement “COMMENT DELETED. Renew Economy, the cited source, has no credibility, except with nitwits” at https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2020/09/a-fools-bargain-trades-gold-for-green/#comment-85249 is a prize example of an authoritarian imposing his own judgement as an orthodoxy, and to the extent circumstances and the times allow. A democrat would want the readers to decide on it for themselves. But Cardinal Franklin knows best, and does their thinking for them.
    From 1483 to 1818 such authoritarians ran the Holy Inquisition on the Iberian Peninsula, plunging the region into something of a Dark Age from which it slowly emerged in the 20th C, with the Holy Catholic Church having endorsed the overthrow of a democratically-elected Spanish government by General Franco, and the unholy dictatorship of Antonio Salazar in Portugal.
    I doubt Yeshua bar Joseph would have approved.

  • talldad

    So help me, Ian MacD, you complain of authoritarian impositions, yet you lay down dogma on the Canon of Scripture, don’t you?

    “I suppose that in your collection of books you have a copy of the KJV with Apocrypha included, illustrating the historical evolution of Holy Scripture.”

    I contend that there was no evolution. My bookshelf holds a Thompson’s Chain Reference edition which shows the links from original autographs to early copies to all the subsequent translations along with such discoveries as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The NT canon was already firm before 70AD as defined by the original Apostles and visible from expressions in the letters of Peter and Paul. Councils defended what was previously defined against imported ideas. Purgatory was a later accretion and its recent banishment is, in fact, a welcome removal of a complicating barnacle on the hull of the ship of faith.

    We are all fallible, the church has always been beset by enemies without and heresies within. No doubt there is much that Yeshua bar Yusef would not approve in church history.

  • Ian MacDougall

    talldad:
    “The NT canon was already firm before 70AD.”
    Yes, but it was not yet written in the form we know in the KJV.
    “Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek…. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,… Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,…. and John AD 90–110…. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses…..(A few conservative scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.)”
    NB: My emphasis – IM.
    “Purgatory was a later accretion and its recent banishment is, in fact, a welcome removal of a complicating barnacle on the hull of the ship of faith.
    “We are all fallible, the church has always been beset by enemies without and heresies within. No doubt there is much that Yeshua bar Yusef would not approve in church history.”
    Well, you can say that again. But religion is based on ‘revelation’, unlike science, which can only be based on evidence.
    Religion is stuff you can make up as you go along; like Purgatory. In fashion one day, out the next. (Did all those poor souls get cooked for nothing?)
    .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#:~:text=Like%20the%20rest%20of%20the,and%20John%20AD%2090%E2%80%93110.

Post a comment