Neil Patterson ViaMedia.News A Tale of Two Reports
David Runcorn Inclusive Evangelicals No turning back – holding fast in a hesitant church
Paul Avis Church Times Ailing and failing: the Church of England has lost its way
“An institution that is marred by scandal and division needs to prioritise ethical thinking and acting”
I’m very grateful to Paul Avis for his article. When we both worked together in the Diocese of Exeter I sometimes had disagreements with Paul, very notably over the Anglican Communion Covenant, which he seemed rather sold on at the time. From the tone of his article, I sense that his own thinking has moved on a little, especially in his suggestion that the LGBT+ community find themselves excluded from church life. I enjoyed his conclusion and reference to John Oman in the first world warm and the ethical dimension. I suppose the problem is that there is a very… Read more »
Paul Avis’s article appeals to me on an emotional level. It is heartfelt and good-hearted. But…… I’m unconvinced. The “presenting issue” (i.e the one everybody is talking about) might be safeguarding failures but I don’t believe that’s the reason why so many people don’t attend Sunday worship. The main reason is surely that people just don’t believe that supernatural stuff any more? I suspect my parents didn’t believe it either but their social world revolved entirely round the Church. I was a thinking, serious-minded, church-attending, teenager in a very high Anglo-Catholic church in Wales when “Honest to God” was published. My confirmation classes, with… Read more »
What a refreshing comment. I believe part of the reason for Church decline is the type of biblical, superstitious drivel that has been in the ascendency for the last few years. I would add Richard Holloway to John Robinson’s attempt to convey a mature and sensible faith to a doubting population. The people are asking for bread. We give them anti-gay evangelical nonsense in the hope they’ll become as hateful and narrow-minded as we are.
Much value in your words. I remember a priest telling us (when I was a young boy) that God was not an old man with a beard sitting in heaven above us. Yet, so much of our language clings to that concept. Who or what is this God which has a will? What is the nature of God? How can we communicate that, other than vague terms like ‘ground of our being’? When we pray, to whom or what are we praying? My least favourite verses are the last verses of psalm 137 ‘By the rivers of Babylon’, which are… Read more »
Good question. I have read – or at any rate tried to read – Tillich. And Caputo. But the C of E website doesn’t engage with that difficult stuff, it keeps it simple: “The faith of the Church is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the words of the Apostles’ Creed.” So that’s that. Forget the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans”. Those “ultimate concerns”. It was all sorted out long ago. The Church website has had a lot to say about the need for “new forms of Church.” But as Colin Coward suggested, in one of the first things I… Read more »
One can interpret the website slightly differently, though, Pam, I think. The Church maintains that it believes the faith proclaimed by the earliest disciples, and recorded by some of them in the New Testament, and doctrinally in the credal of the next few centuries — the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed (as revised at Constantinople), the Chalcedonian Definition. But it doesn’t say how those statements themselves are to be interpreted or understood in the 21st century. That is something which each generation, each person, has to do for themselves, bringing whatever intellectual, spiritual, emotional and other skills, experience and insight… Read more »
As one of the psalms for the 28th day it always comes in rather fittingly at Evensong for Holy Innocents.
‘people just don’t believe that supernatural stuff any more?’ People believe all kinds of supernatural stuff nowadays – from a white feather being a sign from their dear departed, to the accuracy of horoscopes, to the efficacy of crystals. Watch a travel documentary and see the presenter sampling the rituals of different faiths – including witchcraft (Joanna Lumley) – or asking for a shamanic blessing. A major department store in London offers tarot readings. Maybe part of the problem is that the faith we’re offering isn’t supernatural enough, or isn’t supernatural in the right way. Charismatic and Pentecostal churches seem… Read more »
Yes, I really I should have said “most people don’t believe that supernatural stuff”. And the people who believe in crystals or fairies or witches probably never attended an Anglican church anyway. I would take little – indeed no – convincing that a shamanic blessing, bestowed with goodwill, is as effective as one from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
So it depends on the goodwill of the one blessing, not the name evoked in blessing?
Yes, but blessing, for me, is a two-way process – it depends also, surely, on the “readiness” of the blessed to receive that blessing? If someone who is ill, or bereaved, knows they are on the “prayer list” of their local Church they might well derive real comfort from that knowledge. And that loving prayer is certainly “good for” those who pray. One can feel that without believing in the “Father Christmas” concept of God on which petitionary prayer depends (I’m grateful to the rector of my local church for that arresting notion).
I don’t think it matters whether you come to faith via a thirst for the supernatural (which a good many people clearly have), or via rational thought, or via hunger for social justice. They’re all important, and the Church of England must have room for all.
It’s also the case that even of people who “believe” in crystals or fairies or witches, it is a very shallow form of belief. It does not profoundly alter their world-view, their ethics, their behaviour: it’s a rather vague sort of belief which begins and ends with some approximate suggestion that the crystals are not just rocks. That’s true of much of what is known in some circles as “woo”: that there’s a range of “esoteric” or “spiritual” beliefs that are held by people for unclear reasons, that someones give those people some vague comfort, but basically have no effect… Read more »
‘It’s also the case that even of people who “believe” in crystals or fairies or witches, it is a very shallow form of belief. It does not profoundly alter their world-view, their ethics, their behaviour: it’s a rather vague sort of belief which begins and ends with some approximate suggestion that the crystals are not just rocks.’ What evidence do you have to support this? Wiccans (sometimes called witches) have a system of belief which profoundly influences their behaviour towards the natural world, and their ethics. People who believe in astrology guide their conduct by it – including Nancy &… Read more »
potential newcomer with an open mind will search the C of E website in vain for any indication that it has moved beyond third and fourth century theology. ” An incautious statement, not to say ill-informed, statement. I can think in the next 30 seconds probably of a dozen clergy and or theologians, or both, who’ve engaged with modern thinking and have been committed to, or contributory to, the Church of England. Begin with Rowan Williams, Oliver O’Donovan, Nigel Biggar, the late John Webster, Tom Wright, the late Stephen Sykes, Janet Martin Soskice (okay. She’s a Roman Catholic but still… Read more »
Though doubtless not as widely read as you I can think of clergy and others who have “engaged with modern thinking” too. I know and admire several personally and have read many others, including Richard Holloway. But I stand by my statement that the Church of England website is not a promising resource for those who are looking for signposting to such thinking.
I didn’t say that nobody is doing any interesting thinking. I suggested you would search for it in vain on the Church of England website.
If you are looking for people who deny the Creeds, you’re hardly likely to find them on the Church’s website.
I would question your language. I certainly know priests who do not see any need to accept the creeds as literally “true” any more than they accept the creation stories in Genesis as literally “true”. They might describe them as “poetry”. Is “denial” or “acceptance” appropriate language to describe our response to poetry? .
But when 10 different people recite the creeds it means 10 different things. What does ‘god’ mean? Or father? Or reigns? Or ‘on high’? It is all based on what pam calls a father christmas concept. I dont see any sign of the last 100 years of theology in our recitations.
A good few years ago now, Peter Vardy wrote a very good introduction for the general reader to four different ways of understanding “God”. If you haven’t read it you might find it helpful. The conceptions range from the very literal and anthropomorphic right through to an almost-abstract affirming how life can be lived: God as personal and everlasting God as timeless substance A linguistic view of God God as affirming a possible way in which life can be lived Having set out these different concepts, he then considers how it impacts on miracles, prayer, eternal life, evil, religious experience,… Read more »
Neil Patterson commends Love Matters for “presenting a theology of human relationships which responds more imaginatively to the great diversity of family situations where love is found in England today.” While Love Matters itself has (p101): “Studies of children growing up with parents of the same-sex have found no significant differences in child outcomes, adjustment, behaviour, gender development, wellbeing and self-esteem as a function of parental sexual orientation. …Children born to or adopted by same-sex parents are as likely as other children to thrive. The focus is clearly on relationship quality and family stability.” So why doesn’t the CofE extend… Read more »
I mean…I don’t think our vicars interview people looking at getting married in their church with a view to sussing out if they’re going to be procreative anyway. The answer on the CofE’s website to “marriage after divorce” is already “it may be possible”. These are both redefinitions of marriage, but we’ve become to accustomed to straight marriages that are by intention childless, and to the remarriage of divorced people, at least in the UK. Therefore, we’ve already redefined marriage – going off how we treat straight couples as a church, a marriage doesn’t have to have children, and can… Read more »
Do we bless gay couples in a way that honours their goods, but without being marriage or do we invite gay couples to consider sacramental marriage – and redefine Church teaching for all marriages? This is the right question, thank you, Allan, for putting it so clearly. The Church of England’s default approach in all contended matters has been to make categories as broad as possible in order to include as many people in them as possible but I wonder if we are now approaching the outer limits of that strategy.
I think it’s probably important to actually consider what the CofE actually believes about marriage, not just what it purports to teach. It’s also worth considering whether the definition of marriage is arrived at from first principles, some discernment of essential nature, or whether it is simply empirical – a record of what the authors of the BCP et al observed around them. The church more-or-less adopted marriage, rather than creating it. Perhaps it is time to re-adopt it, based on what it is now rather than what it was 400 years ago?
For a Canadian Anglican, the endless decades of seeing the Church of England going forward and backward along with the running commentary of cynics, grumps, and naysayers seems so confusing and I can sense the discouragement in some of today’s articles. The situation in Canada is not similar, I admit. The Anglican Churchbof Canada is not part of the national conversation and our polarities are not as pronounced. That being said, the debate over same-sex issues was long and painful and its result was along the lines of an agreement to move forward, acknowledging that some disagree. The proximity of… Read more »
Is the congeniality of the ACC you note a function of its size (very small) and its liberal uniformity?
Your question relies on certain outside and incorrect assumptions. The “smallness” of the Anglican Church of Canada” has become a popular cliche, as well as its supposed “liberalism.” As “Protestants” in Canada go, we are still the second largest denomination. As background, the Canadian population was never large and Roman Catholicism has been dominant due to the French and Irish background of significant numbers. Canada has a significant indigenous population as well. The number of Anglicans in the Census was always much greater than those on parish rolls, and the number givers/attenders is smaller than that. This is not new.… Read more »
I agree with a lot of what you say in both your comments to date. However, I think it is important to point out that there have been significant tensions around the question of same sex marriage in our Canadian Church involving our bishops. Pace the observation by Anglican Priest, some time of Conservative Wycliffe College in T.O., the Canadian Church is not uniformly liberal. As a matter of fact, divisions on the same sex marriage file vote in the House of Bishops is a case in point . The vote failing in the order of bishops by a thin… Read more »
I am a Senior Research Professor at Wycliffe in the University of Toronto. I was on staff for a good many years at St Matthew’s in Riverdale.
The majority of Canadian Anglicans use and are happy with the BAS. Bishop Vicars Short, who chaired the Doctrine and Worship Committee that produced that book, would be surprised to hear it described as ‘liberal uniformity’.
Roger, I think one difference would be that in Canada what the Brits call ‘Safeguarding’ is a matter of diocesan policies, not national church. Our church is far more dispersed when it comes to policy issues, stipend levels, and so on. My understanding is that the C of E doesn’t have diocesan canons (I stand to be corrected if I’m wrong), whereas in our church we have canons at diocesan, provincial, and national church levels.
Ethical matters can be very divisive, of course