Monday, July 14, 2008

Telegraph: God Has No Influence on the Anglican Church

The Sunday Telegraph has published its list of the 50 most influential figures in the Anglican church. It's called the Lambeth Power List, so you can tell how much a Christian understanding of leadership and influence is at work here. None whatsoever. It's therefore a shame that some Christian commentators have been part of putting this together.

The top 10 have all been in the media on a regular basis, and most of the top 50 are bishops, academics, or people with high positions in the Anglican hierarchy. I bet Rowan Williams wishes he really was the most influential figure in the CofE, some days it probably doesn't feel like it. The only out and out missionary of the lot is Nicky Gumbel.

Neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit make it into the top 50. If there are 50 humans more influential on the CofE than God, then God help us. Thankfully this is just another one of those silly lists that people like to read and argue over. I'm tempted to argue about it myself, but that just gives it credibility. Get behind me Satan, you do not have in mind the thoughts of God, but of men.

6 comments:

  1. Blimey, David! What penetrating analyis! What insight into the real life of hte Church! It all makes one feel like finding a quiet gas oven to stick one's head in for a bit...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bishop Alan: admit it, you're just hacked off that you didn't make the top 50.

    I'm not sure how mustard seeds - the real raw material of the Kingdom - make a 'power list' anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But neither "the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit" are technically human [whether or not they exist].

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jesus wasn't technically human?

    And they did say 'figures', rather than 'people'. So I'm sticking to my guns...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jesus isn't technically human now - he's dead.

    And you could quite happily argue that as the 'Son of God', he wasn't actually human at any point, but rather a super natural being in a flesh suit.

    But by "figures", they do obviously mean living human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  6. " you could quite happily argue that as the 'Son of God', he wasn't actually human at any point, but rather a super natural being in a flesh suit."

    I suppose you could, but you'd have to square that with him being born, growing up, eating, sleeping, going to the toilet etc. etc.

    This could get into a debate about whether Jesus is actually dead or not, but I don't have enough time in my diary over the next few days to do the debate justice!

    I shall have to shove my tongue a bit further into my cheek next time, this is already getting too serious.

    ReplyDelete