Church of Ireland - Looking for orthodox congregation in Dublin

roverman

Hello all,

I'm a conservative anglican who is relocating to Dublin and would like to find a good solid Church of Ireland congregation that takes its mission seriously.

I'm looking for a congregation that emphasizes the values and traditions of classical anglicanism. My taste in worship lies slightly more at the "high church"/traditional/liturgical end but orthodox belief is more important to me than style.

I'd also like a church that has very good children's programs.

Like many Anglicans, I've been very distressed by the recent potential for schism over Bishop Robinson. Homosexuality is not really an issue for me at all but the questioning of fundamental creedal elements that also goes along with liberalism is. (I'm moving from the US and, if you're a believing Anglican, you wouldn't believe what's happening there!!)

From what I've read and experienced, I'm a bit concerned with whats happening in the COI - especially statements by A of Dublin and B of Cork on the potential schism. My experience of a few COI congregations also suggests that some of them are very insular and not that welcoming to newcomers, heavily composed of "old families".

I've looked at CORE and it seems too much on the "non-denominational" and charismatic end of the scale for me.

Episcopal governance and the apostolic succession, as well as a liturgical approach to worship are important to me. But I'd also consider a conservative presbyterian church if anyone has any suggestions?

George

philologos

Most Anglican churches in Ireland are low church. If you are located in the Dublin and Glendalough Diocese you should look at their website.

http://dublin.anglican.org

You can see the parishes and where they are located on Google Maps. I hope you will find a church suited to you.

kelly1

Hello George, this is a bit of a cheeky question, but have you considered the Catholic Church, I dare ask.

God bless,
Noel.

wolfsbane

roverman wrote: »

Hello all,

I'm a conservative anglican who is relocating to Dublin and would like to find a good solid Church of Ireland congregation that takes its mission seriously.

I'm looking for a congregation that emphasizes the values and traditions of classical anglicanism. My taste in worship lies slightly more at the "high church"/traditional/liturgical end but orthodox belief is more important to me than style.

I'd also like a church that has very good children's programs.

Like many Anglicans, I've been very distressed by the recent potential for schism over Bishop Robinson. Homosexuality is not really an issue for me at all but the questioning of fundamental creedal elements that also goes along with liberalism is. (I'm moving from the US and, if you're a believing Anglican, you wouldn't believe what's happening there!!)

From what I've read and experienced, I'm a bit concerned with whats happening in the COI - especially statements by A of Dublin and B of Cork on the potential schism. My experience of a few COI congregations also suggests that some of them are very insular and not that welcoming to newcomers, heavily composed of "old families".

I've looked at CORE and it seems too much on the "non-denominational" and charismatic end of the scale for me.

Episcopal governance and the apostolic succession, as well as a liturgical approach to worship are important to me. But I'd also consider a conservative presbyterian church if anyone has any suggestions?

George

Hi, George. Welcome to the list.

I'm not an Anglican, but I have several Evangelical friends who are. They may be able to help you. Here's a couple of their sites:
Immanuel Church Dublinhttp://www.icm-online.ie/sunday.html

Reform Ireland
http://www.reform-ireland.org/

Michael G

roverman wrote: »

Hello all,

I'm a conservative anglican who is relocating to Dublin and would like to find a good solid Church of Ireland congregation that takes its mission seriously. I'm looking for a congregation that emphasizes the values and traditions of classical anglicanism.

Welcome George. I'm a Catholic but I keep in touch with the debate within Anglicanism that has been going on so publicly recently. I can't recall seeing any reports of Irish Anglicans taking a strong position on either side. But as you have noticed, the bishops who get noticed by the Irish news media tend to be on the liberal wing, but that is what the papers and RTE (the national television and radio network) look for. Liberal Catholic clergy and lay people also get much more coverage than conservatives. One commentator pointed out recently that in a discussion about the Anglican debate about homosexual priests and women bishops, RTE did not interview Anglians with different views but instead chose two liberal Catholics and gave them air-time to agree with one another.

I would like to know what the view is among the more committed (i.e. regularly churchgoing) Irish Anglicans. If you find out, would you post here?

Again, welcome.

roverman

Hello all!!

I wanted to thank everyone for their responses and suggestions - which were very useful. I'm also delighted to have found this online community as well.....

Kelly 1 - Asking me if I had considered joining the RCC is not at all a "cheeky" question. My wife is a RC and I have tremendous admiration and love for my christian brothers and sisters in the Church of Rome - and in particular the strong stand that successive Popes have taken against theological liberalism and in favour of traditional teachings on social issues.

Indeed if you look at the political anarchy unleashed by the Robinson controversy – and the creedal temporizing in many western Anglican churches that it is emblematic of- then the stability afforded by the Roman communion looks distinctly attractive.

However, I fundamentally believe in the classical “protestant” model of salvation (works being the fruit of grace and faith, rather than works being required for salvation). I also have serious concerns about Marian devotion – which seems particularly intense in Ireland , and consider the doctrine of papal infallibility a late 19th century innovation. As to why not non-Anglican Protestantism, I also prefer decorum and a liturgical approach to worship and believe that there’s a strong case for Episcopal governance- and feel that institutional tradition/reason should be applied when interpreting scripture.

All in all, I feel that the primitive church and the faith once delivered to the saints bears a much stronger resemblance to Anglicanism than to the latter day Roman church or to the various modes of evangelicalism that exist.

That said, the Anglican model has ended up tolerating gross error and heresy in recent decades – better Ratzinger than Spong J

Michael G - I'm not fully up to speed with what's happening in the COI but I will provide my perspective which is based more on reading media reports than from talking with people. My few “on the ground” contacts are mostly in the Derry & Raphoe area.

* Most “regulars in the pews” and a lot of parochial clergy haven’t seemed particularly concerned about this issue or the potential schisms. The COI seems a bit of an island within Anglicanism but this may change…. I’d hypothesize that there’s a urban/rural and Northern/Southern breakdown when it comes to liberal vs conservative.

* There are relatively small groups of activists on each side. However, The liberals seem a lot more highly placed- Multiple Bishops among their number (I’d number Neill (Dublin), Mayes (ex-Limerick), Colton (Cork), Clark (Meath), Henderson (Tuam) and perhaps Harper (Armagh) in this camp ) as well as enjoying the support of a sympathetic general media. (see the puff pieces on Bishop Robinson in the Indo and Irish Times).

* Miller (Down and Dromore) and Good (Derry/Raphoe) would be the only conservatives among the 12 bishops. There’s also a Fellowship of Evangelical Clergy which would speak for about 70-90 clergy (about 10%) and is largely Northern-based. The evangelicals would claim, with some justice that they speak for a large % of the active membership which live in NI but which are under-represented in the COI’s structures (e.g. there are single parishes in Miller’s diocese which are larger than Cork , Cashel or Tuam).

* However, from what I’ve read, the Irish Bishops of all shades are a very coherent and close-knit team – and have worked hard to try to keep the COI together (e.g. Miller explicitly mentioned solidarity with his fellow bishops as a reason for his attending Lambeth). However, recent commentary (see my next post) suggests that their efforts may not be successful…

Again, I’m a newcomer and would welcome any perspectives from the native Church of Ireland people on here????

roverman

From the web, there does indeed seem to have been an explosion of stuff regarding homosexuality within the CofI over the last month.

The best coverage of how this controversy has been impacting the COI has come from BBC Northern Ireland's William Crawley. During July, his blog was mostly about the Anglican communion controversy (some of it is here)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/

The headline hitting item was where the A of Armagh said he could see a situation where the CofI would support gay unions, whereupon the leader of the main evangelical organization of Anglican clergy called him a "false teacher"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/08/archbishop_of_armagh_responds.html

His own Bishop of Down also disagreed with him

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/08/08/bishop-harper-was-wrong-about-gays/

Miller also expressed my perspective on what has happened to the Anglican Church in the US pretty well

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2007/09/12/pondering-in-my-heart-reflections-on-personal-experiences-of-ecusa-six-years-ago-bishop-harold-miller-church-of-ireland/

This is is an Irish Times article written by Changing Attitide - a pro-homosexual group within the COI

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0715/1215940930848.html

Typical Irish media coverage of CofI - which quotes one liberal bishop

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0725/1216917539183.html

kelly1

roverman wrote: »

However, I fundamentally believe in the classical “protestant” model of salvation (works being the fruit of grace and faith, rather than works being required for salvation).

I think it's clear from Scripture that good works are required for salvation:-

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.

What is absolutely certain is that salvation comes from grace alone and grace comes from Christ alone. Nowhere does the bible mention faith "alone" being sufficent for salvation. God gives very generously and He expects us to serve Him and our brothers and sisters with good works. We can never be complacent and sit back relying on faith alone to save us. James makes it clear that faith without works is dead:-

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

If this is so then it is possible to have faith without works; otherwise he wouldn't have said what he said. Note James doesn't say works alone just as Paul never said faith alone. Both are required and are complimentary.

The question is do good works automatically come with grace. I don't think so. Certainly good works are only possible with grace because all good comes from God but we still have the freedom to either reject or cooperate with God's grace. Grace doesn't force us to do good works but it does make us more inclined to do so.

See what Paul has to say about charity:-

1 Cor13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Basically what I'm saying is that all salvation comes from Christ and God's freely given grace but that we are required to serve God and neighbour as a condition of our salvation. Works don't save us but not doing works offends God and jeopardizes our salvation. God has been generous with us. We need to return this generosity. "Love one another as I have loved you".

You might find this article useful http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FAWORKS.htm

God bless,
Noel.

roverman

Hello Noel,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I've no desire to rehash the debates over the protestant and the roman models of salvation. However, I'll do a once-off reply.

There's a lot that we can agree upon - especially the first element of your claim, namely that we are all sinners, can do nothing to save ourselves and find salavation only through the Grace of God.

However, I believe that scripture clearly teaches that faith alone on our part is sufficient for salvation. The key to understanding this is to recognize that no single verse can be interpreted in isolation. Let me quote some of the numerous verses that support this - including the direct words of the Saviour:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18

"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” John 3:36

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die." John 11:25,26

and here is Paul's judgement

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" Rom 3:28.

"To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" Rom 4:5.

and when the jailer asked Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved, the response was:

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:30

In each of the aforementioned examples, faith is necessary and sufficient for salvation - surely, works would also have been mentioned in these cases had they also been required.

Let me quote the passage from James that you mentioned in full (James 2: 14-16):

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.

If one of you says to him, Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that— and shudder.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called God's friend.
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."


The classical protestant/calvinist view - which I also hold - is that good works are merely the fruit of faith and don't add anything to Christ's free and all-sufficient sacrifice for us. In the context of all of the other passages that I quoted, I believe that this passage is describing what a _dead faith_ is (i.e. a faith which is not followed by good works, repentence, etc). - Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matt 7:16

In the beautitudes that you quoted, Christ was clarifying the meaning of the law and how it should be lived. However, no one of us has any hope of living up to this standard - "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Romans 3:23

Thankfully, there's even some sign that the RCC may be coming around to sharing this teaching more explicitly. Here is a quote from a recent and important joint document on justification agreed by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church:

" We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

The problem that I have with the elevation of the role of works traditionally within the Roman Church is the same as I do with recent attempts by some within the RCC to elevate Mary to the title of "co-redemptrix". I know that the intent is not to denigrate the atoning sacrifice that our Saviour alone made for our sins, but in practice that is what can happen.

But, hey, at least you don't have lots of Bishops who openly question the physical resurrection!!!

kelly1

roverman wrote: »

Thankfully, there's even some sign that the RCC may be coming around to sharing this teaching more explicitly. Here is a quote from a recent and important joint document on justification agreed by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church:

" We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

The problem that I have with the elevation of the role of works traditionally within the Roman Church is the same as I do with recent attempts by some within the RCC to elevate Mary to the title of "co-redemptrix". I know that the intent is not to denigrate the atoning sacrifice that our Saviour alone made for our sins, but in practice that is what can happen.

But, hey, at least you don't have lots of Bishops who openly question the physical resurrection!!!

Hello again, I read that doc and I also found another clarifying it:-

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

See clarification No. 3 which states this:-

3. As stated in n. 17 of the Joint Declaration, Lutherans and Catholics share the common conviction that the new life comes from divine mercy and not from any merit of ours. It must, however, be remembered - as stated in 2 Cor 5:17 - that this divine mercy brings about a new creation and so makes man capable of responding to God's gift , of cooperating with grace. In this regard, the Catholic Church notes with satisfaction that n. 21, in conformity with can. 4 of the Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent ( DS 1554) states that man can refuse grace; but it must also be affirmed that, with this freedom to refuse, there is also a new capacity to adhere to the divine will, a capacity rightly called "cooperatio". This new capacity given in the new creation, does not allow us to use in this context the expression "mere passive" ( n. 21). On the other hand, the fact that this capacity has the character of a gift is well expressed in cap. 5 (DS 1525) of the Tridentine Decree when it says: "ita ut tangente Deo cor hominis per Spiritus Sancti illuminationem, neque homo ipse nihil omnino agat, inspirationem illam recipiens, quippe qui illam et abicere potest, neque tamen sine gratia Dei movere se ad iustitiam coram illo libera sua voluntate possit".


In reality, also on the Lutheran side, there is the affirmation, in n. 21, of a full personal involvement in faith ("believers are fully involved personally in their faith").

A clarification would, however, be necessary as to the compatibility of this involvement with the reception "mere passive" of justification, in order to determine more exactly the degree of consensus with the Catholic doctrine. As for the final sentence of n. 24: "God's gift of grace in justification remains independent of human cooperation", this must be understood in the sense that the gifts of God's grace do not depend on the works of man, but not in the sense that justification can take place without human cooperation. The sentence of n. 19 according to which man's freedom "is no freedom in relation to salvation" must, similarly, be related to the impossibility for man to reach justification by his own efforts.


The Catholic Church maintains, moreover, that the good works of the justified are always the fruit of grace. But at the same time, and without in any way diminishing the totally divine initiative (5), they are also the fruit of man, justified and interiorly transformed. We can therefore say that eternal life is, at one and the same time, grace and the reward given by God for good works and merits (6). This doctrine results from the interior transformation of man to which we referred in n.1 of this "Note". These clarifications are a help for a right understanding, from the Catholic point of view, of paragraph 4.7 (nn. 37-39 ) on the good works of the justified.

craigmcc

There are 2 you might try:

Kill O The Grange http://www.kotg.ie/ Rector: Ferran Glenfield

or

Crinken http://crinken.ie/ Rector: Ed Vaughan

Both are in the South Dublin Area

Craig

Húrin

What part of Dublin are you living in?

Tim Robbins

roverman wrote: »

The classical protestant/calvinist view - which I also hold - is that good works are merely the fruit of faith and don't add anything to Christ's free and all-sufficient sacrifice for us.

May I ask what your opinion is on John Calvin's role in the execution of Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician and theologian?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

May I ask what your opinion is on John Calvin's role in the execution of Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician and theologian?

What on earth is the relevance of that to roverman's quote?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

What on earth is the relevance of that to roverman's quote?

Many Calvinists ignore or don't know that fact. If he doesn't want to give his opinion, fair enough. He brought Calvinism into the discussion so I thought it was a fair question.

Fanny Cradock

If CORE was a little too evangelical for you then maybe St. Marks on Pearce St. I think it COI... or is it Pentecostal?

http://www.stmarks.ie/

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If CORE was a little too evangelical for you then maybe St. Marks on Pearce St. I think it COI... or is it Pentecostal?

http://www.stmarks.ie/

It is Assemblies of God (Pentecostal), not CoI.

philologos

Indeed, I'd try St. Marks. I happened to be there last week with a Pentecostal friend of mine. However if it's Anglicanism you are used to you should really try to stay within the Church of Ireland. I'd probably say go to CORE and see what it's like before going to St. Marks, although it might seem a bit Evangelical it's still in the Anglican Diocese of Dublin.

craigmcc

I would still try

Kill O The Grange www.kotg.ie

or

Crinken www.crinken.ie

They are both ANGLICAN and EVANGELICAL but not as CHARISMATIC as CORE which is a great church too. It's good to have at least 3 Evangelical churches in the more liberal diocese of Dublin.