It’s worth pointing out that the reason why there are divisions in the Church of England is because there are deep theological differences within it on the presenting issue. The same is not true of the Episcopal Church of Scotland which seems to be (feel free to correct me if incorrect) a church with a large theologically liberal majority. The Church of England is split right down the middle on this and a sizeable proportion of people believe this isn’t an agree to disagree kind of issue. That’s why we even discuss the concept of impaired communion. Being in communion… Read more »
Which part of ‘one Lord, one faith and one baptism’ do you believe to be untrue of people who differ from you on the ‘presenting issue’? And on what grounds do yo believe that?
This has been covered extensively. I think I’d point you to J.I Packer on the issue when it arose in Canada 24 years ago. The arguments haven’t changed much since. On Kelvin’s point – the reason why the Church of England is struggling on this is because there’s real diversity of thought within it. Saying that a majority theologically liberal denomination doesn’t have to consider things like impaired communion is basically just saying there’s not much disagreement on this issue in the Scottish Episcopal Church. Yet even there a few conservative parishes have left for the GAFCON Anglican Convocation in… Read more »
Thanks. I’ve read the Packer link and am tempted to say, ‘All these arguments I have known from my youth’ – and ultimately found them unconvincing, when I came to study them more closely. A few points: I am struck that Packer regards Paul, rather than Christ, as his first resort and ultimate guide on matters of faith and moral behaviour. Who, then, is it who fails to have ‘one Lord’? Then, Packer gives lip service to his opponents being sincere, but then regards his own interpretation of scripture as being true and obvious, and theirs as being a concession… Read more »
Could I ask this? Is there any doubt that the Church of England is divided over what is held to be “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism”? That seems patent.
I think the C of E are agreed on ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism’ – if not on much else. Jesus is our Lord, Christianity is our faith, and we are baptised in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those are things we hold in common, and they should hold us together. There is room for difference on other issues.
Theological liberals want to tell those with a historic Christian view that the disagreement isn’t as serious as they think it is. Packer highlights the real issue in the Spiritual dangers section of his article. – These teachings are a departure from Scripture and the historic Christian creed effectively meaning we don’t share one faith. – These teachings threaten the salvation of those who hear them. Meaning we diverge on sotieriology and the same baptism. – These teachings expressly contradict what God expressly condemns in Scripture. Packer goes as far as to declare these as blasphemous. Therefore we don’t seek… Read more »
These teachings are a different understanding of scripture, not a departure from it. It’s not up to you, or me, or Packer, to decide from whom Jesus really is Lord, and for whom he is not. If we all have the humility to accept we may be wrong we will make space for each other at the communion table.
And who decided that disputed interpretations of Paul’s letters are more important than Jesus’ command that we love one another?
It isn’t loving to encourage people to disobey God and to threaten their salvation.
Packer covers that in the article also.
That’s precisely why we don’t agree and why it is a matter of first importance.
Particularly given how clear Scripture is on this.
It wouldn’t be loving to leave changes like these unopposed.
Loving my neighbour as myself means encouraging them to know the truth and repent instead. Just like I would want someone to tell me to if I was in danger of losing my salvation.
I don’t think I should regard a neighbour who kept telling me I must repent and accept his version of the truth as very loving. I’d think him a bit of a bell end. The neighbour who offered to lend me his hedge trimmer would be far more useful and neighbourly.
If salvation means spending an eternity in the company of the self righteous I’ll happily forego it. I think Our Lord (at least if St Matthew recorded his words correctly) taught that our eternal salvation depends on how much good we do to our neighbour materially (food, drink, clothing etc) not on how much hieratic jargon and mumbo jumbo we manage to instil into him. Or maybe there is some subtilty in Matthew 25.31 – 46 that I am missing? There is isn’t there?
Believe you me, I’m definitely a sinner, but I’m glad that Christ offers forgiveness to those who repent of their sins rather than affirming themselves in them.
It’s Christ righteousness and we it for everyone no matter who they are.
That’s the nuts and bolts of the gospel and it seems like it gets lost when we want to affirm people in their sin rather to encouraging people to saved from sin.
The self righteous argue they don’t need a Saviour.
Matthew also describes huge crowds heading into the wilderness to hear John’s message ‘Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand‘. He records them being baptised by John and confessing their sins but, perhaps unexpectedly, not requesting the loan of a hedge trimmer.
Is this because you do not take seriously the position of others who say the disagreement is profound? That they sense the Lord and Faith they hold to be in sharp disagreement with what is being presented on the other side.
Naturally you may view the matter differently, but that does not change the fact of their position held in conviction.
Some hold the historic teaching of the BCP and the CofE as a correct representation of the Lord and the Faith.
No, I realise the disagreement is profound, and has a profound impact on people on both sides of the argument – just as disagreements on women’s ordination were profound and impacted people seriously. And I agree that those views, on both sides, are held out of conviction.
What I am saying is that these and other profound disagreements don’t give us the right to withhold holy communion from each other. Our mutual love and obedience to Jesus should come first.
I understand this sentiment in general terms. Augustine famously fought the Donatists because he believed in the Church, and didn’t want it divided. There was all kind of scriptural warrant for his position — not least the Gospel for this Sunday. As he saw it (cf Chrysostom). Two complicating factors. The monarch declared himself the Supreme Governor of the Church in England and so Augustine’s warrants were placed in abeyance. The second, the nature of the dispute at hand, and its substantive character given scripture and the long history of its interpretation in the church catholic. Including the teaching of… Read more »
I don’t see how a schism in the 16th century – or any other century – excuses us from the responsibility to preserve and nurture what unity we have now – whatever our disagreements. Our unity in Christ is greater than denominational boundaries or arguments over doctrine.
The 16th century schism is not one among others, unless you have examples. Sola scriptura as defined at the time gave birth to, what in time, counts over 1000 different denominations. Why? because they disagree over the interpretation of scripture. So, is it any surprise to find this same reality within the CofE? Once the decision is made to split away, the instinct gets imbedded. That is what Augustine sensed in his own time. How is ‘unity in Christ’ to be understood concretely? If you follow the ecumenical landscape over the last 200 years, what becomes obvious is that all… Read more »
So what is the alternative if you live in England and don’t feel able( theologically) to become a Roman Catholic or Orthodox , if you are a sacramental and liturgically minded member of the C of E?
Don’t understand that as a practical proposition tbh.I’m happy with classical Anglicanism ( Bucknell / McAdoo perhaps, and the work of ARCIC.) I said I am unable theologically to become a Roman Catholic or Orthodox. Perhaps I should move to France and find a Catholic bishop who accepts me as I am and is happy to admit me to communion on a eucharistic hospitality basis?
Why not practical? It may come to that anyway given the state of affairs and poor attendance (and not getting better); the ongoing, intractable disputes; the Space for Faith Monarch; is Parliament invested in the CofE in any serious way? Well, given the state of affairs, what would you propose? As for moving to France, etc. In my experience given the lack of any serious alternatives to Christian faith and life, the Catholic Church can be more ecumenically oriented. I suspect more goes on at the practical, lived level of worship and fellowship, and sharing French language and culture. I… Read more »
“to be Catholic is to be ecumenical.” That is a fair assessment, as long as one understands that the Catholic position is that the fullness of catholicity resides only in the Catholic Church. “As a result, many Communions, national or confessional, were separated from the Roman See. Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place.” (Underlining mine). The Decree on Ecumenism. Chapter III, para. 13. The entire document may be found here. Unitatis redintegratio “Nazir-Ali simply identified the catholic claims of Anglicanism as having timed out, such as… Read more »
I had to smile (again) at your last line: wink wink, nudge nudge. lol. ( : Yeah, I thought, or hang out with ACNA when Stateside? This conversation has a streak of the realignment agenda. The Question of a “Space for Faith Monarch” has been alluded to. Good to see The King taking his responsibilities to a pluralistic democracy seriously. (link). Here is a type of article I’d like to see more of on TA. God save the King! https://engelsbergideas.com/reviews/charles-iiis-philosophy-of-harmony/ “Moreover, when Charles speaks of ‘wholeness’ and ‘interconnection’ – words that recur throughout the documentary – he does so alluding… Read more »
As in Anglican realigning vis-a-vis Rome. Or Global Methodists and the UMC. Or PCA and PCUSA. Or the tribes of Reformed. Or ACC and ACNA. Or the Monarch vis-a-vis Supreme Governor of CofE and Defender of the Faith. Or PECUSA and the REC. Eglise reformee and Catholics in France. Or LCMS and ELCA and LCNA.
Do you believe you haven’t realigned yourself. Of course you have.
I kind of like the notion of “Defender of Faiths”. I think King Charles is doing a commendable job in balancing the roles of Monarch and Supreme Governor. There is a diplomacy at work that quite frankly some religious leaders could learn from. There is a fair amount of equivocation in your reply. I am referring to the politics of the Anglican realignment movement. I’m not a fan of Wiki; but I’ve attached a link. I know you know all about this. It is for the benefit of other thinking Anglicans who may not be familiar with the ecclesiastical political… Read more »
PS– I am the least realigned Episcopalian I know. 4 generations. 8 clergy. Faithful Priest in the Diocese of Central Florida, as was my grandfather, uncle, father, brother.
I am where I live as it is where I lost my wife to Covid. So, I ‘hang out’ (preach, pastor, teach) where God has placed me, in the historic Diocese of SC.
There is the schism between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, and that between the Church of England and the Methodists, to name just two. There are the Christians who were excluded after eg the Council of Nicaea. But our unity in Christ transcends all these denominational boundaries, or should do. I have received holy communion from RCs and celebrated the eucharist for them, and I would do the same for Orthodox Christians in the same circumstances. We’re all going to be in fellowship in heaven and we might as well start here and now..
The Orthodox RC divide isn’t on the same order as the CofE and the Catholic Church. They recognize each others orders and sacraments. The Continental Reformation is a seismic event, particularly in the West. I know it might be useful to say ‘well this and that is like the division of the Reformation’ — it just isn’t true. This is also just changing the subject, which has to do the the fate of the CofE as a severely declining entity. Is any of the following in doubt? I think what is going on in the CofE is something like pressing… Read more »
I thought the subject was whether we are, can, or ought to be in communion with people who disagree with us, particularly on LGBT matters. And in my view we ought be able to share communion with anyone who follows Jesus.
I’m not much exercised abut the future of the C of E. God’s Kingdom will endure without it.
“And in my view we ought be able to share communion with anyone who follows Jesus.”
And this is precisely where the problem manifests itself.
There is a disagreement about who this Jesus is and what he has said and commended, taking form in the historical faith of the church and the canons and BCP of the CofE.
People want to follow a Jesus who commends something contrary to this. In disagreement with it.
I am still strggling with what is meant. I would be happy to share Holy Communion with most other denominations, from Baptist to RC, even Orthodox, if offered. Even if i disagreed fundementally with some of their teachings.
However, I would be less happy if CoE was ‘in communion’ with certain other denominations, I would have to consider it on a case by case basis.
This distinction seems to be lost in all these discussions.
Who is to decide who is following the ‘real’ Jesus, and which version is the ‘real’ Jesus? Only God can do that. And given that that all of us see only partially, we may be truly following Jesus as we see him – but that may be a true aspect of Jesus not seen by another true follower. Again, our vision may get a little clearer as we mature in the faith, but God doesn’t judge us for being only babes or toddlers. There’s room to grow.
Neither can I. The sacraments are a gift from God to us. Those of us who administer them are just that —administrators, not adjudicators. In offering the sacrament of the Eucharist, we are commanded to do so in remembrance of the one who gave the gift and will be the judge. I also note that Jesus apparently included Judas in the Last Supper ie the first Holy Communion.
If you’d been a Christian in Germany in 1944 would you have knowingly participated in a Eucharist at which death camp officers received the sacrament? I hope I would have had the courage to break communion with the ‘German Christians’ and gone underground.
What we don’t agree on is the moral and practical implications of Jesus’ Lordship. These are urgent and pressing. If one person holds that Jesus’ Lordship demands the renunciation of their same sex sexual attractedness and the embrace of celibacy, and another holds that Jesus’ Lordship encourages the celebration and blessing of their sexually active same sex relationship, then they’re not really agreed, are they Just using the same words, when they mean opposite things.
Are you saying that we worship different gods? It certainly feels that we do at times, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one Lord — indeed, one who will be judge! I also don’t see what the decline in CofE attendance has to do with this question — are we voting who is Lord?
You have a point. But why can’t we tolerate those who disagree with us on LGBT issues, given that we all follow Jesus? At the communion table we ought to be focusing on Jesus and what he has done for us, not on our disagreements with the person next to us at the altar rail.
I regularly receive communion at diocesan events with my clergy friend who is an ex-military chaplain. He believes that ‘Jesus is Lord’ allows Christian soldiers to kill people (including people who call themselves Christians) in defence of their country. I believe—in company with most Christians from the first three Christian centuries—that ‘Jesus is Lord’ requires me to refuse to participate in war and lethal violence. To me this is not a minor issue (St. Paul got all bent out of shape when Jewish and Gentile Christians refused to eat together- how would he have felt if they’d started killing each… Read more »
Thanks Tim.
Are there any issues at all where different interpretations of the implications of Jesus’ Lordship ought to become communion-breaking matters? Or is the interpretation of Jesus’ Lordship a completely boundary-free free-for-all?
If not, then it sounds like a null claim to me, with zero practical import beyond our own interpretations – all of which we all have to accept as plausible for those to whom they make sense.
‘Are there any issues at all where different interpretations of the implications of Jesus’ Lordship ought to become communion-breaking matters?’ There probably are, but I think we have to think hard about what they might be. And just saying ‘the Bible says’ doesn’t cut it. After all, the Bible says charging interest on loans is wrong, but we’ve all reconciled ourselves to it and built our economic system (and our pension plans) on it. Jesus says ‘No one can become my follower unless they give up all their possessions’, but there seems to be a gentleman’s agreement among Christians not… Read more »
Tim Evans
20 days ago
Gerry Lynch has identified some powerful trends and current realities in the life of our nation and the church that seeks to serve it. We live in a country that no longer knows not for the most part cares what it might need a national church for. One clear result of those trends is the extraordinary collapse in numbers of baptisms, weddings and funerals the CofE conducts. Meanwhile most of the centrally contrived responses, not least Mission Shaped Church in 2004, failed to do the analysis Gerry has done and were therefore ineffective and even drained morale and energy from… Read more »
The decline in the occasional offices is certainly part of wider cultural shifts. But it’s also a self inflicted wound. When I was in west Newcastle I typically did 3 funerals a week and they were a fantastic opportunity to build relationships. In a parallel way, when i was in Harrogate doing 50 weddings a year, more fantastic opportunities, and indeed Paul Bayes fantastic and informed work on the wedding project. But at the same time, the massive hike in fees (2014?) led to many funeral directors doing what they wanted and simply ignoring denominational allegiance unless it was clearly… Read more »
This is my experience too. Another contributing factor was the lack of courtesy displayed by some clergy in their response (or lack of it) to funeral directors – not replying quickly – or families asking for a baptism – making them sign up for lengthy preparation courses or only offering blessings if they didn’t meet the vicar’s standard of overt faith. We broke the centuries old unspoken contract between ordinary people and their (not just our) parish church. Unsurprisingly they walked away.
A funeral director told me that at least 50% of his funerals were conducted by Civil Celebrants and he thought he was not alone in that.
The reason he said where Church of England clergy are difficult to get hold of. He said when you phone you often have to leave a message and clergy are very slow in responding. He said that Civil Celebrants are much easier to deal with.
Families arranging a funeral often have no church connection and unless they specifically ask for a denominational minister, he automatically gets a Civil Celebrant.
Is not the decline in confirmations due, at least in part, to the practice, welcome in my view, of admitting children to communion before confirmation? Confirmation probably needs rethinking.
Perhaps we are rethinking Confirmation already – or rather, dismissing it from our mind altogether. Two of our teenage grandchildren are connected with local (evangelical) churches and involved in their activities: they are ‘actively’ Christian. Neither is confirmed (which is troubling), but the websites of their churches shows no indication of a thing called ‘Confirmation’. One has a section headed ‘Baptism and Confirmation’, but reading on there is no mention of Confirmation at all…. Are evangelical clergy simply giving up on Sacraments, and instead regarding interior spiritual experiences shared informally being what really count? Both churches I refer to speak… Read more »
You imply confirmation is a sacrament, which I find troubling, and I find your trouble that they are not confirmed troubling also. They seem to have made an adult commitment. I’m not bothered.
On the other hand, Eucharist should be non-negotiable.
I totally share your admiration for Halik and have said so here and to others more than once. But getting from the page to ‘this means we should …starting here..’ seems a leap too far. Perhaps we need a ‘try this for starters’ list.
I totally agree here, but I do want to say that occasional offices provide one of the solutions to the decline we face. I know i was priest of a large parish church but we had over 100 funerals, 40 weddings, and 120 christenings year – so I was fortunate – but we worked the numbers and when I look back to the growth we had in people coming to faith…. most roads led to this. With the legendary Paul Bayes, I was also involved in the weddings, funerals and baptisms projects. They were great, but they substituted printed glam… Read more »
I’ve just done two baptisms today, one last week and one coming up next month. Far fewer than I did more than 25 years ago when I first became a vicar. But they feel more meaningful in that baptisms happen where there is real faith and participation in church life much more these days than when I was first ordained, when in some strata of society a ‘christening’ was a cultural expectation. There are pros and cons to all this. But more pros than cons in my estimation.
But if being baptised is motivated by social and cultural traditions rather than by faith, is it doing any good? Might it be actually vaccinating people against Christianity?
Matthew was lamenting the loss of the “social and cultural traditions” of baptism. I questioned whether it is actually a loss that matters. Neither of us suggested those traditions still exist to any significant degree.
But, why does church only count if it’s on a Sunday? And if it’s in a purpose-built edifice, rather than a school, cafe, home, or pub?
I don’t see in the Scriptures a promise that God will save – whatever is meant by that – people whose baptism was not an expression of their faith. That would reduce a sacrament to mere magic, and make God our puppet.
But sacraments are “effectual signs of grace”. Grace doesn’t create faith. As Matthew said, God keeps his promise. I think when parents bring their child to baptism we should on the whole take a charitable view of their motivation. And in England there is often a class dimension. The working class historically looked to the C of E for the Occasional Offices, Sunday School but very rarely frequent attendance. Others are more at ease with Church attendance ( perhaps confirmed at Public School etc) and will probably jump through the hoops necessary to get their child if you operate a… Read more »
Indeed. My neighbouring parish wouldn’t baptize children of non-churchgoers, even if the parents were willing to attend prep, which meant we picked up some of ‘their’ baptisms. I would seek the goodwill of their Vicar, not expecting to get it, but would go ahead anyway after prep (all the Canons require is that goodwill is sought, not received). The same parish caused hurt to my churchwarden by ‘re-baptizing’ her daughter as an adult. I took this up with my bishop as chief minister of initiation. He was not happy: if they did not believe the adult to have been baptized,… Read more »
By coincidence, earlier today I wrote about (the late) Stanley Monkhouse doing exactly the same thing. In his case, there was the added potential ‘complication’ that the refused children, as well as being non-resident, came from a different diocese, literally on the other side of the river from Stanley’s parish. Whatever the ‘proper’ protocol might have been, Stanley said that his own bishop knew and took no action!
I wasn’t suggesting a tight baptismal policy – I certainly didn’t operate one – and I agree that people may have faith without attending church. I merely think that if people no longer have children baptised as a matter of routine and without spiritual intent, that isn’t necessarily a terrible thing.
Jesus said that that where he didn’t meet with faith he could perform no miracles, so why would we assume that the sacrament will ‘take’ if those concerned are doing it only for show?
Indeed. you get the strange situation which is the exact opposite of that faced in the NT, where baptism is part of the answer to the question ‘What must I do to be saved?’ and the answer involves faith, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. But in late Christendom the question became ‘What must I do to get my baby christened?’ and the answer was – well, it varied, but hopefully we were trying hard to get the parents interested in salvation, faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit!
This question has led to some very ‘creative’, albeit liturgically and theologically ambiguous ‘reaffirmation of baptism vows by total immersion’ services, in my recent experience.
When I was 16 (back in the 1970s) I got to stand beside my best friend (also 16) as he was baptized on profession of faith in our C of E church in rural Essex. His parents were not believers and had elected not to have their children baptised (unusual for those days). The day was incredibly meaningful for him. He came into faith through the doorway of friendship and witness, and a church community that embraced him, and his baptism was a beautiful culmination of that process.
Me too! Often a couple come to faith at the same time, one was baptised as an infant and the other not. One is baptised by immersion and the Holy Spirit, the other is baptised in the Spirit, but I can’t help is missing out on something special.
Well, I think we can have a pretty good guess. In the NT different behaviours are instructed among believers and in interaction with unbelievers. So I think they must have thought one might be able to tell.
Could you explain this a little further. How were believers distinguished un the New Testament. And how do you, today, distinguish a believer from a non believer? Is it setermined by the quantity of religious jargon they know?
When Christians could be thrown into prison, flogged, or martyred for their faith it was less likely they might be attending church and going through the ‘Christian’ motions for teh sake of appearances or social cachet.
Indeed. Bill Vanstone’s contribution to the sadly neglected Report ” Believing in the Church”( 1981) or the sociological work on London east end religion , “An Ordinary God” by Grace Davie.
I wouldn’t presume of comment on the state of the question in the C of E; but I would be interested to know about your experiences from your time in both Edmonton and The Arctic. Here in Nova Scotia ( I’m speaking retrospectively) we put a lot of time and energy into trying to engage young families around the times of Baptism, Frist Communion, Confirmation. An aside: Children can be admitted to Communion here before confirmation, and there was an attempt to move confirmation away from a set ‘magic age’ to older ages and at a time when the person… Read more »
By the end of my (nearly 24 year) ministry at St. Margaret’s, we were hardly getting any requests for ‘drive-by baptisms’; almost all the requests came either from church members or people who had some connection to our parish. This trend was already present when I began in February 2000 and had become even more pronounced by the time I retired. Confirmations were uncommon, I suspect because of several factors. (1) Some people had already made adult commitments to Christ through adult baptism. (2) Confirmation was no longer a necessary hoop to jump through to receive communion. (3) All baptisms… Read more »
As you know Rod I am currently attending a Mennonite church on Sundays while still being licensed as an Anglican priest and doing regular work for the Diocese of Edmonton as well. Anabaptists practice only adult believers’ baptism but my observation is that they don’t practice it very much. In common with more evangelical denominations like Baptists, Alliance, etc., it is quite common for people raised in the church, or not, to reach adulthood and not get baptised – I suspect because it is seen more in terms of an adult commitment to discipleship and less in terms of what… Read more »
Do I take it you no longer uphold the 39 Articles that were designed to protect the majestorial English Reformation from the more the more radical Anabaptist Reformation? We currently average over 1 adult baptisms a month with many more we have to reject on account of their Christening as a child so I am interested how you square Anglican dogma with Anabaptist teaching on baptism. It sounds a bit like the issue the first Christians when encountering people who had received John’s baptism and they decided to re-baptise everyone just to make sure!
Adrian, I am retired and can attend church anywhere without being required to subscribe and uphold to anything. I inhabit a rather unusual liminal space between Anabaptism and Anglicanism. My bishop, who was my personal friend long before he became my bishop, has been aware for a long time of my interest in Anabaptist Christianity, and he has encouraged me to explore new ways in which churches that seem very different can learn from each other. By the way, when it comes to tensions between 16th C Anabaptists and the ‘magisterial’ Reformation, there are some interesting court records of the… Read more »
“I think my colleague Ruairidh will concur with me on that.” I do! That is certainly the case in Canada in my experience. We could have fun with that. “The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or carried about…” (XXV) Commonly in many parishes here every Maundy Thursday to begin the stripping of the altar and sanctuary, near the end of the liturgy, the sacrament is solemnly processed from the sanctuary to an altar of repose, where it remains, usually lit, until after Good Friday. BTW, John MacQuarrie in his little book, Paths of Spirituality has… Read more »
In truth, I suspect that very few C of E ‘people in the pew’ take much notice of the 39 Articles (I confess to being one such) and others might not know of them at all. Somewhat to my surprise a vicar who I thought had slight AC leanings suddenly appeared in a Roman cassock with multiple black buttons (red buttons and piping seem to have become popular with honorary canons) and when I enquired why, “39 buttons for the 39 Articles” was the reply with a broad smile.
Indeed. One of the Prayer Book Anglo-catholics I knew here year years ago, a big Percy Dearmer fan, referred to them affectionately as ” the 40 stripes save one”.
I was interested to learn that the 39 Articles were not bound into the BCP until the 18c so for nearly three centuries after the Elizabethan Settlement the laity who ( apart from a few school masters) never had to affirm them anyway, were probably unaware of them. The Laity got their church teaching from the Catechism ( which was basic and avoided contentious points). Interested to see a question about the status of the Revised Catechism at the July Synod.
I think it was a mistake in typing. The Magisterial Reformers were people like Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zwingli…the ” heavyweight’s” of the 16 c Reformation who effectively moulded the theological basis of their Reformed Churches.
Thanks Tim. I see affinities in my experience here with yours where you have served, including the cultural perspective on christening in Diocese of The Arctic. Things have changed here with fewer baptisms. Interestingly, some of the ‘progressive’ Baptist congregations here have been accepting people for membership who have been baptized as children in other denominations–not requiring them to be baptized again by immersion per Baptist norms as ‘believers’. I think the change is probably motivated by recognizing others as already discipled, as you suggest. During my time as rector of St. James here in Halifax, the sixties architectural style… Read more »
Replying both to Janet and to Tim. My understanding of the New Testament example, and how this built onto mystery religion practices of the day, is that the actual rite of initiation (baptism) was not a stand-alone event but the culmination of a significant prior period of study, teaching and reflection. Perhaps the Ethiopian eunuch is a good example here, he did not come to his baptism without previous spiritual work and knowledge. But that understanding has been devalued at times as baptism practices have changed within Christianity over centuries. Does baptism create the change, or is it a marker… Read more »
Not sure why that is in inverted commas. Also, not sure what, to most, is meant by ‘outward’, ‘visible’, ‘inward’, invisible’, ‘grace’ in the context of baptism or confirmation. Outward and visible I understand. Grace i was taught equals God’s riches at Christ’s expense, but that opens another discussion. I don;t think that is a universal understanding of the word. I fear that for most – outside of the church – it is merely religious gibberish which washes over the heads. Warm and fuzzy. Aha – a quick google says The Alpha course does not directly administer the sacraments (such… Read more »
I used quote marks because it was a direct quote, but it would have been more helpful had I given the source of the quote. It has been variously attributed to St Augustine of Hippo (autocorrect wants me to say Hippogriffs!) and to John Wesley, and is used in formularies by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. Baptism – the subject of this discussion – happens outwardly and visibly, in front of a congregation. It reflects an inward grace: to those who believe in baptismal regeneration, a sign that God is at work in the person; to… Read more »
Yes, I am fully aware of the phrase, and could explain it all. I was more concerned with whether it makes sense, and how it is communicated and interpreted to those not used to religious langiage.
When communicating with people unused to religious language, I doubt it’s a good idea to start with the catechism. But contributors to TA are not, as a rule, in that condition of ignorance.
‘Catechist. What do you mean by this word Sacrament?
‘Answer. I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given to us by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof. ‘
Indeed. Sadly doing Post Ordination Training ten years ago I discovered in my group only one out of twelve knew what a catechism was and didn’t know it was in the BCP. Interesting given the centrality of the Catechism in lay instruction up to WW2 , possibly beyond. Abp William Temple ( and Geoffrey Lampe) prepared people for Confirmation using it. The Revised Catechism was much used in the 1960’s is still authorised. I noticed a question was asked about it at the last Synod. A short Outline of the Faith ( as found in the TEC Prayer Book) would… Read more »
Interesting comment. I was chatting with a friend who is doing work with ordinands in The United Church of Canada.
In the course of the conversation he told me he was taken aback when he discovered that there was no familiarity with the definition, a sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace.
Our Canadian 1962 BCP is still our authorized book but in practice the 1985 BAS is used almost all the time, and the catechism is not in it. But every time I introduced it to my parishioners at St Margaret’s in small group study, they loved it.
“The call to an intimate personal relationship with Jesus Christ is also the call to display outwardly the love and the nature of the one who now dwells within. This is the truth that brings holiness and the sacramental life together.”
That seems a much easier and simpler description. It avoids the use of the term ‘grace’.
Useful link. Easily understood.
I don’t think the average person in the street has a clue what ‘grace’ means. Not even sure many priests or theologians do, or rather thay have a variety of different understandings.
What is the difference between christening and baptism then. Please explain this in simple language.
Why is that a myth? Isn’t it what the BCP rite teaches? ‘Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly believe, that he will receive this present infant, that he will embrace him in his arms of mercy, that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom.’
The BCP statement says nothing about what will happen if the child is not baptized.
The rubrics of the Common Worship provision for emergency baptism include the following:
2 Parents are responsible for requesting emergency baptism for an infant. They should be assured that questions of ultimate salvation or of the provision of a Christian funeral for an infant who dies do not depend upon whether or not the child has been baptized.
It was my daughter who was confused, she thought they were different, she thought she had been christened as a baby but was not baptised. I tried to explain it was the same, but she was of course ‘right’.
Maybe this reflects the confusions in the general population.
myths are powerful though aren’t they? I know it’s a myth, but… when we had a baby during the first 2020 lockdown, and she wasn’t very well at home, I would be lying if I claimed I didn’t eye up the sink and think ‘I could just baptise* her now to be on the safe side…’
At a workshop on baptism, the priest leading it put on his hard hat and said: “If the baby is in danger of death, even a Muslim midwife can baptize as long as she does what the Church does.” None of the clergy present could come up with a valid reason why not.
When I was chaplain to Queen Charlotte’s Maternity Hospital in Hammersmith I always explained this in my talk to the nurses. I noticed in the baptismal register there were the occasional lay baptisms. ( In the 16c it was an issue between conformists and the Puritans who opposed midwives baptising in an “emergency”. I remember one year having just got into bed after the Midnight Mass getting a call and trudging through the snow to baptise a baby in an incubator ( you use a long spoon). I found different responses to still births very interesting. Some couples wanted prayers… Read more »
That would have been perfectly proper, in fact correct in my eyes. There seems to be an increasing obsession about total immersion – inappropriate I would suggest for a baby, so certainly not the kitchen sink. Whatever CW might say, I don’t see the need for consent of both parents. Hasn’t it been known for a hospital nurse (I suppose in former times) to baptise a seriously ailing infant when no chaplain or other priest is available? And what do we say about those C of E clergy who deny baptism to an infant based on their disapproval (for whatever… Read more »
Much of my wife’s and another adjoining vicar’s ministry were taken up in the occasional offices and pastoral needs being avoided by a Conservative Evangelical vicar who effectively operated a gathered church outside any diocesan or CoE constraints or expectations. The diocese were well aware of the situation.
I wonder how many such parishes there are, whether the number is growing and how far ( in the longer term) it will simply undermine the parish system from within? With multi church benefices becoming the norm in so many dioceses the parish system is creaking as it is.
“The diocese were well aware of the situation.” The obvious question – and I’m asking this in good faith – has anything been done about it by the bishop? A coastal parish has been ‘re-baptizing’ folk in the sea for a few years. Despite this being common knowledge no action seems to have been taken – to the dismay of neighbouring benefices. Their parish priest will have been asked during the ordination charge: “Will you faithfully minister the doctrine and sacraments of Christ as the Church of England has received them, so that the people committed to your charge may… Read more »
Many thanks to Kelvin for his encouraging and thought-provoking account.
Ruairidh
20 days ago
Very good article by Kelvin Holdsworth. This is really a tangent on my part but I too have seen the wooden pallets in the lot next to my Belfast Hotel room. I was there in 2025, first and only time, as a mere tourist. It was at the time of the riots in Ballymena. I got an ear full from a loyalist cabbie about the situation. I also had a very interesting and lengthy conversation with a chap on the train from Belfast to Dublin. About my age, a protestant from The Republic who had lived and worked in The… Read more »
As a lay funeral officient authorised by my bishop, pre covid I was doing at least one a week to reileve pressure on clergy. Since Covid, just the odd one. Did Covid present via funeral directors the ‘crem only’ solution? Easy for them and lucrative!! interested to know colleagues experiences
Absolutely – locally they’re encountering more and more pastoral fallout from families who – for a number of reasons, including a misunderstanding of what a ‘direct cremation’ really amounts to and those who are one step removed from the NoK who has made the arrangements but are still close enough to the deceased to feel the lack of rite of passage acutely – are struggling. Colleagues of mine predicted this fallout during COVID, and though I’d guess it’s not a majority of families who find themselves in this position after a direct cremation, it does seem to be a not… Read more »
In the last year or two I’ve had a few Memorial (i.e. funeral in all but name) services at church which people have asked for some months after a direct cremation. It seems to be that, at the time of ‘acute’ bereavement, a direct cremation looks like an easier, less-fuss option (and clearly has its attractions-one less thing to cope with etc.), but for some there seems to be something about a formal service that helps ‘closure’ in a way that direct cremation doesn’t.
Yes, I have done some burials of ashes in similar circumstances and try to ‘recover’ some of the liturgical ministry missed out by not having a funeral.
But its imperfect.
Hi There. I’m not sure if you intended this as a reply to me; but I can’t address the question. I’m not familiar with your context there. Best wishes.
Allan Sheath
17 days ago
I may not have been the only one on TA to feel a stab of self-recognition at Gerry Lynch’s: “Most clergy I know react to the upsurge in populism with horror, and wish they could somehow suppress it. We should be honest enough to admit that may simply be pursuing our class interest.” And again: “New converts aren’t coming for either progressive or populist political agendas, but out of bereavement, dread and spiritual hunger.” When young people turn up in our parishes, they’re not seeking accommodation, but rootedness and meaning; not a Church that is beholden to the moral… Read more »
Yes, it was an excellent thought provoking article.
I was interested in his description of ietsism. Christians talk a lot about ‘God’, but are unable to easily explain who or what God is, so maybe we should use the label ‘iet’ instead.
The label ‘God’ is a barrier, and conjures up all kinds of negative images, from old man in the sky to some waspish mystic messenger.
I don’t see their lack of a Church grammar as a problem. Changing it to make it ‘relevant’ and ‘accessible’ is what we were told to do, and look where it’s got us – a faith to grow out of, not into. Nothing kills a sacrament so surely as saying exactly what it means.
But nobody seems to be able to communicate to modern generations exactly what the label ‘God’ means. ‘ground of our being’ is not exactly inspirational. Footballers crossing themselves as they run onto the pitch is not exactly helpful – it is the old man in the sky with partiality for particular nations. When we start to think about our language and how it is understood outside of the church, then there will be change. I’m not talking about relevance or accessibility. Let me be clear – to the non-churchgoer, the church is full of perverts, anti gay and anti-women, believe… Read more »
I’m not sure what non-churchgoers think about the Church – if they think about it all.
As for communicating to modern generations “exactly what the label ‘God’ means”, do you give them a sermon on the Trinity or invite them to the Eucharist, with the possibility they may be caught up in the mystery that is God?
Wesley called the Eucharist a ‘converting ordinance’ – not a reward for the spiritually assured. Wisdom that the Church he remained a priest in would do well to remember.
Doesn’t belief in “God” mean a belief that there is something akin to mind or consciousness behind all of creation? And that the Universe is in some way “willed”, not meaningless. And so right and wrong, good and evil, have some objective reality, and are not merely human convention. And because we have minds/consciousness too and so can reach out and maybe connect to The Mind?
I have to be careful and be clear I am not suggesting throwing out the baby with the bath water. But, for various reasons,’God’ and ‘CoE’ are tainted brands amongst many. So I was interested in Gerry Lynch’s description of ietsism. So can your description be communicated without using the word ‘God’? As well as the creation aspect, a sense of love and forgiveness needs to be communicated. Difficult in current environment. Maybe there should be a survey of how Christianity and the church is communicated in the media (mainstream and social). That would be an interesting GS discussion. Do… Read more »
Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God, Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy. Irresistible grace. That’s what draws people in. You can see it on their faces. Different types of people, all ages, all backgrounds. All changed.
None at all. When I say grammar, maybe i mean syntax. I am sure some erudite person here will explain all the different words meaning ‘God’ which have been used in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I’m not talking about changing the gospel. I am talking about overcoming tha barriers of language, and acknowledging they are barriers.
What is the theological difference between ‘God’ and ‘iet’? There are no doubt many, as there are between differences in understanding of ‘God’, but maybe those ietists are rejecting Godists because of a contamination of the word God.
I’m arriving late to comment on these three blogs. I count all three authors as friends, friends from my past as Founder and Director of Changing Attitude. Gerry Lynch was a founder member of Changing Attitude Ireland before arriving in the diocese of Salisbury and ending up as my parish priest in Worton. The first time I met Phil Groves was at a Changing Attitude meeting in Leicester and the first time I met Kelvin, founder of Changing Attitude Scotland, in person was at a meeting at the ACC offices in London. Like Phil, I attended two Lambeth Conferences, but… Read more »
Dear Colin, delighted to be your friend. It is hard to explain to people just what a joy the Anglican Communion can be. You will find I have tracked the division and devistation of GAFCON and allies in a chaper for Evangelical and Inclusive, but there is some hope in Brazil, Botswana and Jamaica where LGBTQI+ voices have not been silenced and Anglicans have been on their side. I hope you have followed what I have been witing about myself. I now know what it is to be vulnerable in my core as I am talked about as an object… Read more »
Dear Philip, you are very far from ‘an object’. I found your Via Media article lucid and valuable. You speak up for kindness, inclusion and diversity. Neuro-diversity is one precious example of diversity. It can have uncomfortable interfaces, but it also brings very precious gift to community – the gift of diverse ways of thinking and the gift of who a person is – and I am glad you speak up for people who have so much to offer, and who matter… as *human beings* and *children of God*. As you rightly say, our Lord Jesus engaged and went out… Read more »
Martin Reynolds
9 days ago
Is Kelvin’s excellent piece .. the only reference on TA to the ACC?
We once had excellent coverage on these pages on more general Anglican affairs..
Is it really such a dead donkey?
It’s worth pointing out that the reason why there are divisions in the Church of England is because there are deep theological differences within it on the presenting issue. The same is not true of the Episcopal Church of Scotland which seems to be (feel free to correct me if incorrect) a church with a large theologically liberal majority. The Church of England is split right down the middle on this and a sizeable proportion of people believe this isn’t an agree to disagree kind of issue. That’s why we even discuss the concept of impaired communion. Being in communion… Read more »
Which part of ‘one Lord, one faith and one baptism’ do you believe to be untrue of people who differ from you on the ‘presenting issue’? And on what grounds do yo believe that?
This has been covered extensively. I think I’d point you to J.I Packer on the issue when it arose in Canada 24 years ago. The arguments haven’t changed much since. On Kelvin’s point – the reason why the Church of England is struggling on this is because there’s real diversity of thought within it. Saying that a majority theologically liberal denomination doesn’t have to consider things like impaired communion is basically just saying there’s not much disagreement on this issue in the Scottish Episcopal Church. Yet even there a few conservative parishes have left for the GAFCON Anglican Convocation in… Read more »
Thanks. I’ve read the Packer link and am tempted to say, ‘All these arguments I have known from my youth’ – and ultimately found them unconvincing, when I came to study them more closely. A few points: I am struck that Packer regards Paul, rather than Christ, as his first resort and ultimate guide on matters of faith and moral behaviour. Who, then, is it who fails to have ‘one Lord’? Then, Packer gives lip service to his opponents being sincere, but then regards his own interpretation of scripture as being true and obvious, and theirs as being a concession… Read more »
Could I ask this? Is there any doubt that the Church of England is divided over what is held to be “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism”? That seems patent.
I think the C of E are agreed on ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism’ – if not on much else. Jesus is our Lord, Christianity is our faith, and we are baptised in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those are things we hold in common, and they should hold us together. There is room for difference on other issues.
But does saying this is so, mean it is so in the face of manifest division — division in which people disagree with you?
I fear that your response really points to the main issue at hand.
You pronounce agreement and agreement is not there.
It is important for those observing this decline and at a rate unlikely to correct — to face facts.
Theological liberals want to tell those with a historic Christian view that the disagreement isn’t as serious as they think it is. Packer highlights the real issue in the Spiritual dangers section of his article. – These teachings are a departure from Scripture and the historic Christian creed effectively meaning we don’t share one faith. – These teachings threaten the salvation of those who hear them. Meaning we diverge on sotieriology and the same baptism. – These teachings expressly contradict what God expressly condemns in Scripture. Packer goes as far as to declare these as blasphemous. Therefore we don’t seek… Read more »
These teachings are a different understanding of scripture, not a departure from it. It’s not up to you, or me, or Packer, to decide from whom Jesus really is Lord, and for whom he is not. If we all have the humility to accept we may be wrong we will make space for each other at the communion table.
And who decided that disputed interpretations of Paul’s letters are more important than Jesus’ command that we love one another?
It isn’t loving to encourage people to disobey God and to threaten their salvation.
Packer covers that in the article also.
That’s precisely why we don’t agree and why it is a matter of first importance.
Particularly given how clear Scripture is on this.
It wouldn’t be loving to leave changes like these unopposed.
Loving my neighbour as myself means encouraging them to know the truth and repent instead. Just like I would want someone to tell me to if I was in danger of losing my salvation.
I don’t think I should regard a neighbour who kept telling me I must repent and accept his version of the truth as very loving. I’d think him a bit of a bell end. The neighbour who offered to lend me his hedge trimmer would be far more useful and neighbourly.
But losing your salvation while having a well maintained hedge seems like a poor choice,
If salvation means spending an eternity in the company of the self righteous I’ll happily forego it. I think Our Lord (at least if St Matthew recorded his words correctly) taught that our eternal salvation depends on how much good we do to our neighbour materially (food, drink, clothing etc) not on how much hieratic jargon and mumbo jumbo we manage to instil into him. Or maybe there is some subtilty in Matthew 25.31 – 46 that I am missing? There is isn’t there?
I’m Christ righteous.
Believe you me, I’m definitely a sinner, but I’m glad that Christ offers forgiveness to those who repent of their sins rather than affirming themselves in them.
Our attitude to our sin matters.
It’s the hope of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
We’re washed in Christ.
In other words you feel morally superior. Sounds like self righteousness to me.
It’s Christ righteousness and we it for everyone no matter who they are.
That’s the nuts and bolts of the gospel and it seems like it gets lost when we want to affirm people in their sin rather to encouraging people to saved from sin.
The self righteous argue they don’t need a Saviour.
Matthew also describes huge crowds heading into the wilderness to hear John’s message ‘Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand‘. He records them being baptised by John and confessing their sins but, perhaps unexpectedly, not requesting the loan of a hedge trimmer.
I’m not sure where is the disagreement on ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism’?
Is this because you do not take seriously the position of others who say the disagreement is profound? That they sense the Lord and Faith they hold to be in sharp disagreement with what is being presented on the other side.
Naturally you may view the matter differently, but that does not change the fact of their position held in conviction.
Some hold the historic teaching of the BCP and the CofE as a correct representation of the Lord and the Faith.
Others do not hold that.
No, I realise the disagreement is profound, and has a profound impact on people on both sides of the argument – just as disagreements on women’s ordination were profound and impacted people seriously. And I agree that those views, on both sides, are held out of conviction.
What I am saying is that these and other profound disagreements don’t give us the right to withhold holy communion from each other. Our mutual love and obedience to Jesus should come first.
I understand this sentiment in general terms. Augustine famously fought the Donatists because he believed in the Church, and didn’t want it divided. There was all kind of scriptural warrant for his position — not least the Gospel for this Sunday. As he saw it (cf Chrysostom). Two complicating factors. The monarch declared himself the Supreme Governor of the Church in England and so Augustine’s warrants were placed in abeyance. The second, the nature of the dispute at hand, and its substantive character given scripture and the long history of its interpretation in the church catholic. Including the teaching of… Read more »
I don’t see how a schism in the 16th century – or any other century – excuses us from the responsibility to preserve and nurture what unity we have now – whatever our disagreements. Our unity in Christ is greater than denominational boundaries or arguments over doctrine.
The 16th century schism is not one among others, unless you have examples. Sola scriptura as defined at the time gave birth to, what in time, counts over 1000 different denominations. Why? because they disagree over the interpretation of scripture. So, is it any surprise to find this same reality within the CofE? Once the decision is made to split away, the instinct gets imbedded. That is what Augustine sensed in his own time. How is ‘unity in Christ’ to be understood concretely? If you follow the ecumenical landscape over the last 200 years, what becomes obvious is that all… Read more »
So what is the alternative if you live in England and don’t feel able( theologically) to become a Roman Catholic or Orthodox , if you are a sacramental and liturgically minded member of the C of E?
I should expect you’d need to de-nationalise and then decide where you stand vis-a-vis others.
Don’t understand that as a practical proposition tbh.I’m happy with classical Anglicanism ( Bucknell / McAdoo perhaps, and the work of ARCIC.) I said I am unable theologically to become a Roman Catholic or Orthodox. Perhaps I should move to France and find a Catholic bishop who accepts me as I am and is happy to admit me to communion on a eucharistic hospitality basis?
Why not practical? It may come to that anyway given the state of affairs and poor attendance (and not getting better); the ongoing, intractable disputes; the Space for Faith Monarch; is Parliament invested in the CofE in any serious way? Well, given the state of affairs, what would you propose? As for moving to France, etc. In my experience given the lack of any serious alternatives to Christian faith and life, the Catholic Church can be more ecumenically oriented. I suspect more goes on at the practical, lived level of worship and fellowship, and sharing French language and culture. I… Read more »
“to be Catholic is to be ecumenical.” That is a fair assessment, as long as one understands that the Catholic position is that the fullness of catholicity resides only in the Catholic Church. “As a result, many Communions, national or confessional, were separated from the Roman See. Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place.” (Underlining mine). The Decree on Ecumenism. Chapter III, para. 13. The entire document may be found here. Unitatis redintegratio “Nazir-Ali simply identified the catholic claims of Anglicanism as having timed out, such as… Read more »
I had to smile (again) at your last line: wink wink, nudge nudge. lol. ( : Yeah, I thought, or hang out with ACNA when Stateside? This conversation has a streak of the realignment agenda. The Question of a “Space for Faith Monarch” has been alluded to. Good to see The King taking his responsibilities to a pluralistic democracy seriously. (link). Here is a type of article I’d like to see more of on TA. God save the King! https://engelsbergideas.com/reviews/charles-iiis-philosophy-of-harmony/ “Moreover, when Charles speaks of ‘wholeness’ and ‘interconnection’ – words that recur throughout the documentary – he does so alluding… Read more »
A streak?
As in Anglican realigning vis-a-vis Rome. Or Global Methodists and the UMC. Or PCA and PCUSA. Or the tribes of Reformed. Or ACC and ACNA. Or the Monarch vis-a-vis Supreme Governor of CofE and Defender of the Faith. Or PECUSA and the REC. Eglise reformee and Catholics in France. Or LCMS and ELCA and LCNA.
Do you believe you haven’t realigned yourself. Of course you have.
I kind of like the notion of “Defender of Faiths”. I think King Charles is doing a commendable job in balancing the roles of Monarch and Supreme Governor. There is a diplomacy at work that quite frankly some religious leaders could learn from. There is a fair amount of equivocation in your reply. I am referring to the politics of the Anglican realignment movement. I’m not a fan of Wiki; but I’ve attached a link. I know you know all about this. It is for the benefit of other thinking Anglicans who may not be familiar with the ecclesiastical political… Read more »
God bless you. Off for a spiritual retreat in France, and to spend time with loved ones. May your summer bring you God’s richest joys.
PS– I am the least realigned Episcopalian I know. 4 generations. 8 clergy. Faithful Priest in the Diocese of Central Florida, as was my grandfather, uncle, father, brother.
I am where I live as it is where I lost my wife to Covid. So, I ‘hang out’ (preach, pastor, teach) where God has placed me, in the historic Diocese of SC.
Lots of lol.
Brilliantly expressed, thank you.
There is the schism between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, and that between the Church of England and the Methodists, to name just two. There are the Christians who were excluded after eg the Council of Nicaea. But our unity in Christ transcends all these denominational boundaries, or should do. I have received holy communion from RCs and celebrated the eucharist for them, and I would do the same for Orthodox Christians in the same circumstances. We’re all going to be in fellowship in heaven and we might as well start here and now..
The Orthodox RC divide isn’t on the same order as the CofE and the Catholic Church. They recognize each others orders and sacraments. The Continental Reformation is a seismic event, particularly in the West. I know it might be useful to say ‘well this and that is like the division of the Reformation’ — it just isn’t true. This is also just changing the subject, which has to do the the fate of the CofE as a severely declining entity. Is any of the following in doubt? I think what is going on in the CofE is something like pressing… Read more »
I thought the subject was whether we are, can, or ought to be in communion with people who disagree with us, particularly on LGBT matters. And in my view we ought be able to share communion with anyone who follows Jesus.
I’m not much exercised abut the future of the C of E. God’s Kingdom will endure without it.
“And in my view we ought be able to share communion with anyone who follows Jesus.”
And this is precisely where the problem manifests itself.
There is a disagreement about who this Jesus is and what he has said and commended, taking form in the historical faith of the church and the canons and BCP of the CofE.
People want to follow a Jesus who commends something contrary to this. In disagreement with it.
That’s the nub of the matter.
I am still strggling with what is meant. I would be happy to share Holy Communion with most other denominations, from Baptist to RC, even Orthodox, if offered. Even if i disagreed fundementally with some of their teachings.
However, I would be less happy if CoE was ‘in communion’ with certain other denominations, I would have to consider it on a case by case basis.
This distinction seems to be lost in all these discussions.
Clearly you think those disagreements are more important than I do.
It’s not that I think they are. This is the lay of the land. You can’t follow two different Jesus.
Who is to decide who is following the ‘real’ Jesus, and which version is the ‘real’ Jesus? Only God can do that. And given that that all of us see only partially, we may be truly following Jesus as we see him – but that may be a true aspect of Jesus not seen by another true follower. Again, our vision may get a little clearer as we mature in the faith, but God doesn’t judge us for being only babes or toddlers. There’s room to grow.
Is there ANY disagreement so profound that it should impair communion?
I can’t think of one.
Neither can I. The sacraments are a gift from God to us. Those of us who administer them are just that —administrators, not adjudicators. In offering the sacrament of the Eucharist, we are commanded to do so in remembrance of the one who gave the gift and will be the judge. I also note that Jesus apparently included Judas in the Last Supper ie the first Holy Communion.
If you’d been a Christian in Germany in 1944 would you have knowingly participated in a Eucharist at which death camp officers received the sacrament? I hope I would have had the courage to break communion with the ‘German Christians’ and gone underground.
Of course.
Sorry, I reads it as communion, not Holy Communion. Witholding Holy Communion should be very exceptional.
What we don’t agree on is the moral and practical implications of Jesus’ Lordship. These are urgent and pressing. If one person holds that Jesus’ Lordship demands the renunciation of their same sex sexual attractedness and the embrace of celibacy, and another holds that Jesus’ Lordship encourages the celebration and blessing of their sexually active same sex relationship, then they’re not really agreed, are they Just using the same words, when they mean opposite things.
Are you saying that we worship different gods? It certainly feels that we do at times, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one Lord — indeed, one who will be judge! I also don’t see what the decline in CofE attendance has to do with this question — are we voting who is Lord?
You have a point. But why can’t we tolerate those who disagree with us on LGBT issues, given that we all follow Jesus? At the communion table we ought to be focusing on Jesus and what he has done for us, not on our disagreements with the person next to us at the altar rail.
I regularly receive communion at diocesan events with my clergy friend who is an ex-military chaplain. He believes that ‘Jesus is Lord’ allows Christian soldiers to kill people (including people who call themselves Christians) in defence of their country. I believe—in company with most Christians from the first three Christian centuries—that ‘Jesus is Lord’ requires me to refuse to participate in war and lethal violence. To me this is not a minor issue (St. Paul got all bent out of shape when Jewish and Gentile Christians refused to eat together- how would he have felt if they’d started killing each… Read more »
Thanks Tim.
Are there any issues at all where different interpretations of the implications of Jesus’ Lordship ought to become communion-breaking matters? Or is the interpretation of Jesus’ Lordship a completely boundary-free free-for-all?
If not, then it sounds like a null claim to me, with zero practical import beyond our own interpretations – all of which we all have to accept as plausible for those to whom they make sense.
‘Are there any issues at all where different interpretations of the implications of Jesus’ Lordship ought to become communion-breaking matters?’ There probably are, but I think we have to think hard about what they might be. And just saying ‘the Bible says’ doesn’t cut it. After all, the Bible says charging interest on loans is wrong, but we’ve all reconciled ourselves to it and built our economic system (and our pension plans) on it. Jesus says ‘No one can become my follower unless they give up all their possessions’, but there seems to be a gentleman’s agreement among Christians not… Read more »
Gerry Lynch has identified some powerful trends and current realities in the life of our nation and the church that seeks to serve it. We live in a country that no longer knows not for the most part cares what it might need a national church for. One clear result of those trends is the extraordinary collapse in numbers of baptisms, weddings and funerals the CofE conducts. Meanwhile most of the centrally contrived responses, not least Mission Shaped Church in 2004, failed to do the analysis Gerry has done and were therefore ineffective and even drained morale and energy from… Read more »
Faith, hope and love are the defining virtues, the problem is in defining them.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/10-july/comment/analysis/reith-lecturer-s-warning-to-church Provides a good analysis of the churches trajectory ….back in 1978.
Trust, hope, unity – Labour Party or C of E? Hard to tell the difference.
The decline in the occasional offices is certainly part of wider cultural shifts. But it’s also a self inflicted wound. When I was in west Newcastle I typically did 3 funerals a week and they were a fantastic opportunity to build relationships. In a parallel way, when i was in Harrogate doing 50 weddings a year, more fantastic opportunities, and indeed Paul Bayes fantastic and informed work on the wedding project. But at the same time, the massive hike in fees (2014?) led to many funeral directors doing what they wanted and simply ignoring denominational allegiance unless it was clearly… Read more »
This is my experience too. Another contributing factor was the lack of courtesy displayed by some clergy in their response (or lack of it) to funeral directors – not replying quickly – or families asking for a baptism – making them sign up for lengthy preparation courses or only offering blessings if they didn’t meet the vicar’s standard of overt faith. We broke the centuries old unspoken contract between ordinary people and their (not just our) parish church. Unsurprisingly they walked away.
A funeral director told me that at least 50% of his funerals were conducted by Civil Celebrants and he thought he was not alone in that.
The reason he said where Church of England clergy are difficult to get hold of. He said when you phone you often have to leave a message and clergy are very slow in responding. He said that Civil Celebrants are much easier to deal with.
Families arranging a funeral often have no church connection and unless they specifically ask for a denominational minister, he automatically gets a Civil Celebrant.
Is not the decline in confirmations due, at least in part, to the practice, welcome in my view, of admitting children to communion before confirmation? Confirmation probably needs rethinking.
Perhaps we are rethinking Confirmation already – or rather, dismissing it from our mind altogether. Two of our teenage grandchildren are connected with local (evangelical) churches and involved in their activities: they are ‘actively’ Christian. Neither is confirmed (which is troubling), but the websites of their churches shows no indication of a thing called ‘Confirmation’. One has a section headed ‘Baptism and Confirmation’, but reading on there is no mention of Confirmation at all…. Are evangelical clergy simply giving up on Sacraments, and instead regarding interior spiritual experiences shared informally being what really count? Both churches I refer to speak… Read more »
You imply confirmation is a sacrament, which I find troubling, and I find your trouble that they are not confirmed troubling also. They seem to have made an adult commitment. I’m not bothered.
On the other hand, Eucharist should be non-negotiable.
I totally share your admiration for Halik and have said so here and to others more than once. But getting from the page to ‘this means we should …starting here..’ seems a leap too far. Perhaps we need a ‘try this for starters’ list.
I totally agree here, but I do want to say that occasional offices provide one of the solutions to the decline we face. I know i was priest of a large parish church but we had over 100 funerals, 40 weddings, and 120 christenings year – so I was fortunate – but we worked the numbers and when I look back to the growth we had in people coming to faith…. most roads led to this. With the legendary Paul Bayes, I was also involved in the weddings, funerals and baptisms projects. They were great, but they substituted printed glam… Read more »
I’ve just done two baptisms today, one last week and one coming up next month. Far fewer than I did more than 25 years ago when I first became a vicar. But they feel more meaningful in that baptisms happen where there is real faith and participation in church life much more these days than when I was first ordained, when in some strata of society a ‘christening’ was a cultural expectation. There are pros and cons to all this. But more pros than cons in my estimation.
I do wish that christening was still a cultural expectation though.
Why?
People would be baptised
But if being baptised is motivated by social and cultural traditions rather than by faith, is it doing any good? Might it be actually vaccinating people against Christianity?
“social and cultural traditions”–one might add–whatever one believes about baptism–are so threadbare as to be imaginary.
How many people attend church on Sunday in England?
And how many who don’t want their children ‘christened’ or ‘baptized’? The hugely vast preponderance.
This is driving using the rear view mirror.
Matthew was lamenting the loss of the “social and cultural traditions” of baptism. I questioned whether it is actually a loss that matters. Neither of us suggested those traditions still exist to any significant degree.
But, why does church only count if it’s on a Sunday? And if it’s in a purpose-built edifice, rather than a school, cafe, home, or pub?
Of course it is. Because God for his part keeps his promise. At least in the Prayer Book rite of baptism.
I don’t see in the Scriptures a promise that God will save – whatever is meant by that – people whose baptism was not an expression of their faith. That would reduce a sacrament to mere magic, and make God our puppet.
But sacraments are “effectual signs of grace”. Grace doesn’t create faith. As Matthew said, God keeps his promise. I think when parents bring their child to baptism we should on the whole take a charitable view of their motivation. And in England there is often a class dimension. The working class historically looked to the C of E for the Occasional Offices, Sunday School but very rarely frequent attendance. Others are more at ease with Church attendance ( perhaps confirmed at Public School etc) and will probably jump through the hoops necessary to get their child if you operate a… Read more »
Indeed. My neighbouring parish wouldn’t baptize children of non-churchgoers, even if the parents were willing to attend prep, which meant we picked up some of ‘their’ baptisms. I would seek the goodwill of their Vicar, not expecting to get it, but would go ahead anyway after prep (all the Canons require is that goodwill is sought, not received). The same parish caused hurt to my churchwarden by ‘re-baptizing’ her daughter as an adult. I took this up with my bishop as chief minister of initiation. He was not happy: if they did not believe the adult to have been baptized,… Read more »
By coincidence, earlier today I wrote about (the late) Stanley Monkhouse doing exactly the same thing. In his case, there was the added potential ‘complication’ that the refused children, as well as being non-resident, came from a different diocese, literally on the other side of the river from Stanley’s parish. Whatever the ‘proper’ protocol might have been, Stanley said that his own bishop knew and took no action!
I wasn’t suggesting a tight baptismal policy – I certainly didn’t operate one – and I agree that people may have faith without attending church. I merely think that if people no longer have children baptised as a matter of routine and without spiritual intent, that isn’t necessarily a terrible thing.
Jesus said that that where he didn’t meet with faith he could perform no miracles, so why would we assume that the sacrament will ‘take’ if those concerned are doing it only for show?
Indeed. you get the strange situation which is the exact opposite of that faced in the NT, where baptism is part of the answer to the question ‘What must I do to be saved?’ and the answer involves faith, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. But in late Christendom the question became ‘What must I do to get my baby christened?’ and the answer was – well, it varied, but hopefully we were trying hard to get the parents interested in salvation, faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit!
Or increasingly during the ‘quiet’ revival, ‘What must I do to be baptised when my unbelieving parents christened me as a baby?’
This question has led to some very ‘creative’, albeit liturgically and theologically ambiguous ‘reaffirmation of baptism vows by total immersion’ services, in my recent experience.
When I was 16 (back in the 1970s) I got to stand beside my best friend (also 16) as he was baptized on profession of faith in our C of E church in rural Essex. His parents were not believers and had elected not to have their children baptised (unusual for those days). The day was incredibly meaningful for him. He came into faith through the doorway of friendship and witness, and a church community that embraced him, and his baptism was a beautiful culmination of that process.
Me too! Often a couple come to faith at the same time, one was baptised as an infant and the other not. One is baptised by immersion and the Holy Spirit, the other is baptised in the Spirit, but I can’t help is missing out on something special.
Does God know what he is doing or doesn’t he? Who determines whether the parents are ‘unbelieving’ or not? God or us?
Well, I think we can have a pretty good guess. In the NT different behaviours are instructed among believers and in interaction with unbelievers. So I think they must have thought one might be able to tell.
Could you explain this a little further. How were believers distinguished un the New Testament. And how do you, today, distinguish a believer from a non believer? Is it setermined by the quantity of religious jargon they know?
When Christians could be thrown into prison, flogged, or martyred for their faith it was less likely they might be attending church and going through the ‘Christian’ motions for teh sake of appearances or social cachet.
Children usually know as they grew up with them.
They know better than God?
Indeed. Bill Vanstone’s contribution to the sadly neglected Report ” Believing in the Church”( 1981) or the sociological work on London east end religion , “An Ordinary God” by Grace Davie.
I wouldn’t presume of comment on the state of the question in the C of E; but I would be interested to know about your experiences from your time in both Edmonton and The Arctic. Here in Nova Scotia ( I’m speaking retrospectively) we put a lot of time and energy into trying to engage young families around the times of Baptism, Frist Communion, Confirmation. An aside: Children can be admitted to Communion here before confirmation, and there was an attempt to move confirmation away from a set ‘magic age’ to older ages and at a time when the person… Read more »
By the end of my (nearly 24 year) ministry at St. Margaret’s, we were hardly getting any requests for ‘drive-by baptisms’; almost all the requests came either from church members or people who had some connection to our parish. This trend was already present when I began in February 2000 and had become even more pronounced by the time I retired. Confirmations were uncommon, I suspect because of several factors. (1) Some people had already made adult commitments to Christ through adult baptism. (2) Confirmation was no longer a necessary hoop to jump through to receive communion. (3) All baptisms… Read more »
As you know Rod I am currently attending a Mennonite church on Sundays while still being licensed as an Anglican priest and doing regular work for the Diocese of Edmonton as well. Anabaptists practice only adult believers’ baptism but my observation is that they don’t practice it very much. In common with more evangelical denominations like Baptists, Alliance, etc., it is quite common for people raised in the church, or not, to reach adulthood and not get baptised – I suspect because it is seen more in terms of an adult commitment to discipleship and less in terms of what… Read more »
Do I take it you no longer uphold the 39 Articles that were designed to protect the majestorial English Reformation from the more the more radical Anabaptist Reformation? We currently average over 1 adult baptisms a month with many more we have to reject on account of their Christening as a child so I am interested how you square Anglican dogma with Anabaptist teaching on baptism. It sounds a bit like the issue the first Christians when encountering people who had received John’s baptism and they decided to re-baptise everyone just to make sure!
Adrian, I am retired and can attend church anywhere without being required to subscribe and uphold to anything. I inhabit a rather unusual liminal space between Anabaptism and Anglicanism. My bishop, who was my personal friend long before he became my bishop, has been aware for a long time of my interest in Anabaptist Christianity, and he has encouraged me to explore new ways in which churches that seem very different can learn from each other. By the way, when it comes to tensions between 16th C Anabaptists and the ‘magisterial’ Reformation, there are some interesting court records of the… Read more »
“I think my colleague Ruairidh will concur with me on that.” I do! That is certainly the case in Canada in my experience. We could have fun with that. “The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or carried about…” (XXV) Commonly in many parishes here every Maundy Thursday to begin the stripping of the altar and sanctuary, near the end of the liturgy, the sacrament is solemnly processed from the sanctuary to an altar of repose, where it remains, usually lit, until after Good Friday. BTW, John MacQuarrie in his little book, Paths of Spirituality has… Read more »
In truth, I suspect that very few C of E ‘people in the pew’ take much notice of the 39 Articles (I confess to being one such) and others might not know of them at all. Somewhat to my surprise a vicar who I thought had slight AC leanings suddenly appeared in a Roman cassock with multiple black buttons (red buttons and piping seem to have become popular with honorary canons) and when I enquired why, “39 buttons for the 39 Articles” was the reply with a broad smile.
Indeed. One of the Prayer Book Anglo-catholics I knew here year years ago, a big Percy Dearmer fan, referred to them affectionately as ” the 40 stripes save one”.
I was interested to learn that the 39 Articles were not bound into the BCP until the 18c so for nearly three centuries after the Elizabethan Settlement the laity who ( apart from a few school masters) never had to affirm them anyway, were probably unaware of them. The Laity got their church teaching from the Catechism ( which was basic and avoided contentious points). Interested to see a question about the status of the Revised Catechism at the July Synod.
What does ‘majestorial’ mean?
I think it’s fairly clear that Adrian meant ‘magisterial’.
OK then. So what does ‘magisterial’ mean?
I think it was a mistake in typing. The Magisterial Reformers were people like Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zwingli…the ” heavyweight’s” of the 16 c Reformation who effectively moulded the theological basis of their Reformed Churches.
Thanks Tim. I see affinities in my experience here with yours where you have served, including the cultural perspective on christening in Diocese of The Arctic. Things have changed here with fewer baptisms. Interestingly, some of the ‘progressive’ Baptist congregations here have been accepting people for membership who have been baptized as children in other denominations–not requiring them to be baptized again by immersion per Baptist norms as ‘believers’. I think the change is probably motivated by recognizing others as already discipled, as you suggest. During my time as rector of St. James here in Halifax, the sixties architectural style… Read more »
Replying both to Janet and to Tim. My understanding of the New Testament example, and how this built onto mystery religion practices of the day, is that the actual rite of initiation (baptism) was not a stand-alone event but the culmination of a significant prior period of study, teaching and reflection. Perhaps the Ethiopian eunuch is a good example here, he did not come to his baptism without previous spiritual work and knowledge. But that understanding has been devalued at times as baptism practices have changed within Christianity over centuries. Does baptism create the change, or is it a marker… Read more »
‘A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.’
Not sure why that is in inverted commas. Also, not sure what, to most, is meant by ‘outward’, ‘visible’, ‘inward’, invisible’, ‘grace’ in the context of baptism or confirmation. Outward and visible I understand. Grace i was taught equals God’s riches at Christ’s expense, but that opens another discussion. I don;t think that is a universal understanding of the word. I fear that for most – outside of the church – it is merely religious gibberish which washes over the heads. Warm and fuzzy. Aha – a quick google says The Alpha course does not directly administer the sacraments (such… Read more »
I used quote marks because it was a direct quote, but it would have been more helpful had I given the source of the quote. It has been variously attributed to St Augustine of Hippo (autocorrect wants me to say Hippogriffs!) and to John Wesley, and is used in formularies by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. Baptism – the subject of this discussion – happens outwardly and visibly, in front of a congregation. It reflects an inward grace: to those who believe in baptismal regeneration, a sign that God is at work in the person; to… Read more »
Yes, I am fully aware of the phrase, and could explain it all. I was more concerned with whether it makes sense, and how it is communicated and interpreted to those not used to religious langiage.
Don’t worry – KISS means ‘Keep It Simple S…..’.
When communicating with people unused to religious language, I doubt it’s a good idea to start with the catechism. But contributors to TA are not, as a rule, in that condition of ignorance.
Here is the full quote from the BCP catechism:
‘Catechist. What do you mean by this word Sacrament?
‘Answer. I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given to us by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof. ‘
Indeed. Sadly doing Post Ordination Training ten years ago I discovered in my group only one out of twelve knew what a catechism was and didn’t know it was in the BCP. Interesting given the centrality of the Catechism in lay instruction up to WW2 , possibly beyond. Abp William Temple ( and Geoffrey Lampe) prepared people for Confirmation using it. The Revised Catechism was much used in the 1960’s is still authorised. I noticed a question was asked about it at the last Synod. A short Outline of the Faith ( as found in the TEC Prayer Book) would… Read more »
Interesting comment. I was chatting with a friend who is doing work with ordinands in The United Church of Canada.
In the course of the conversation he told me he was taken aback when he discovered that there was no familiarity with the definition, a sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace.
Our Canadian 1962 BCP is still our authorized book but in practice the 1985 BAS is used almost all the time, and the catechism is not in it. But every time I introduced it to my parishioners at St Margaret’s in small group study, they loved it.
You may find this of interest. Even though a hopeless sacramentalist, I did. Written by Salvation Army Lt. Col. Philip Cairns.
https://salvationist.ca/articles/2012/08/the-real-sacrament/
“The call to an intimate personal relationship with Jesus Christ is also the call to display outwardly the love and the nature of the one who now dwells within. This is the truth that brings holiness and the sacramental life together.”
That seems a much easier and simpler description. It avoids the use of the term ‘grace’.
Useful link. Easily understood.
I don’t think the average person in the street has a clue what ‘grace’ means. Not even sure many priests or theologians do, or rather thay have a variety of different understandings.
It is definitely a liquid because it can be poured.
Isn’t the baby shower the modern approach?
Even my own daughter (who is baptised, and sometimes attends church) gets confused between christening and baptism.
I hope nobody adheres to the myth/heresy that baptism itself ensures passage to heaven. That used to be a strong argument for baptism.
What is the difference between christening and baptism then. Please explain this in simple language.
Why is that a myth? Isn’t it what the BCP rite teaches? ‘Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly believe, that he will receive this present infant, that he will embrace him in his arms of mercy, that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom.’
The BCP statement says nothing about what will happen if the child is not baptized.
The rubrics of the Common Worship provision for emergency baptism include the following:
It was my daughter who was confused, she thought they were different, she thought she had been christened as a baby but was not baptised. I tried to explain it was the same, but she was of course ‘right’.
Maybe this reflects the confusions in the general population.
myths are powerful though aren’t they? I know it’s a myth, but… when we had a baby during the first 2020 lockdown, and she wasn’t very well at home, I would be lying if I claimed I didn’t eye up the sink and think ‘I could just baptise* her now to be on the safe side…’
*I’m lay rather than ordained.
At a workshop on baptism, the priest leading it put on his hard hat and said: “If the baby is in danger of death, even a Muslim midwife can baptize as long as she does what the Church does.” None of the clergy present could come up with a valid reason why not.
Even an atheist midwife can do that.
When I was chaplain to Queen Charlotte’s Maternity Hospital in Hammersmith I always explained this in my talk to the nurses. I noticed in the baptismal register there were the occasional lay baptisms. ( In the 16c it was an issue between conformists and the Puritans who opposed midwives baptising in an “emergency”. I remember one year having just got into bed after the Midnight Mass getting a call and trudging through the snow to baptise a baby in an incubator ( you use a long spoon). I found different responses to still births very interesting. Some couples wanted prayers… Read more »
i agree. Similarly, if conscious (or even if not) on my death bed I would welcome communion, even if I have been a very irregular communicant.
Rites are important in all realms of life.
That would have been perfectly proper, in fact correct in my eyes. There seems to be an increasing obsession about total immersion – inappropriate I would suggest for a baby, so certainly not the kitchen sink. Whatever CW might say, I don’t see the need for consent of both parents. Hasn’t it been known for a hospital nurse (I suppose in former times) to baptise a seriously ailing infant when no chaplain or other priest is available? And what do we say about those C of E clergy who deny baptism to an infant based on their disapproval (for whatever… Read more »
Much of my wife’s and another adjoining vicar’s ministry were taken up in the occasional offices and pastoral needs being avoided by a Conservative Evangelical vicar who effectively operated a gathered church outside any diocesan or CoE constraints or expectations. The diocese were well aware of the situation.
I wonder how many such parishes there are, whether the number is growing and how far ( in the longer term) it will simply undermine the parish system from within? With multi church benefices becoming the norm in so many dioceses the parish system is creaking as it is.
“The diocese were well aware of the situation.” The obvious question – and I’m asking this in good faith – has anything been done about it by the bishop? A coastal parish has been ‘re-baptizing’ folk in the sea for a few years. Despite this being common knowledge no action seems to have been taken – to the dismay of neighbouring benefices. Their parish priest will have been asked during the ordination charge: “Will you faithfully minister the doctrine and sacraments of Christ as the Church of England has received them, so that the people committed to your charge may… Read more »
I fear we are now liberty hall in regard to doctrine, liturgy and parochial practice. Concern for safeguarding is another matter.
The heart has reasons that reason does not know. -Pascal
Many thanks to Kelvin for his encouraging and thought-provoking account.
Very good article by Kelvin Holdsworth. This is really a tangent on my part but I too have seen the wooden pallets in the lot next to my Belfast Hotel room. I was there in 2025, first and only time, as a mere tourist. It was at the time of the riots in Ballymena. I got an ear full from a loyalist cabbie about the situation. I also had a very interesting and lengthy conversation with a chap on the train from Belfast to Dublin. About my age, a protestant from The Republic who had lived and worked in The… Read more »
As a lay funeral officient authorised by my bishop, pre covid I was doing at least one a week to reileve pressure on clergy. Since Covid, just the odd one. Did Covid present via funeral directors the ‘crem only’ solution? Easy for them and lucrative!! interested to know colleagues experiences
More and more ‘pure cremations’ are spooking the FD industry, too.
Absolutely – locally they’re encountering more and more pastoral fallout from families who – for a number of reasons, including a misunderstanding of what a ‘direct cremation’ really amounts to and those who are one step removed from the NoK who has made the arrangements but are still close enough to the deceased to feel the lack of rite of passage acutely – are struggling. Colleagues of mine predicted this fallout during COVID, and though I’d guess it’s not a majority of families who find themselves in this position after a direct cremation, it does seem to be a not… Read more »
In the last year or two I’ve had a few Memorial (i.e. funeral in all but name) services at church which people have asked for some months after a direct cremation. It seems to be that, at the time of ‘acute’ bereavement, a direct cremation looks like an easier, less-fuss option (and clearly has its attractions-one less thing to cope with etc.), but for some there seems to be something about a formal service that helps ‘closure’ in a way that direct cremation doesn’t.
Yes, I have done some burials of ashes in similar circumstances and try to ‘recover’ some of the liturgical ministry missed out by not having a funeral.
But its imperfect.
Hi There. I’m not sure if you intended this as a reply to me; but I can’t address the question. I’m not familiar with your context there. Best wishes.
I may not have been the only one on TA to feel a stab of self-recognition at Gerry Lynch’s: “Most clergy I know react to the upsurge in populism with horror, and wish they could somehow suppress it. We should be honest enough to admit that may simply be pursuing our class interest.” And again: “New converts aren’t coming for either progressive or populist political agendas, but out of bereavement, dread and spiritual hunger.” When young people turn up in our parishes, they’re not seeking accommodation, but rootedness and meaning; not a Church that is beholden to the moral… Read more »
Yes, it was an excellent thought provoking article.
I was interested in his description of ietsism. Christians talk a lot about ‘God’, but are unable to easily explain who or what God is, so maybe we should use the label ‘iet’ instead.
The label ‘God’ is a barrier, and conjures up all kinds of negative images, from old man in the sky to some waspish mystic messenger.
The church grammar needs change.
I don’t see their lack of a Church grammar as a problem. Changing it to make it ‘relevant’ and ‘accessible’ is what we were told to do, and look where it’s got us – a faith to grow out of, not into. Nothing kills a sacrament so surely as saying exactly what it means.
But nobody seems to be able to communicate to modern generations exactly what the label ‘God’ means. ‘ground of our being’ is not exactly inspirational. Footballers crossing themselves as they run onto the pitch is not exactly helpful – it is the old man in the sky with partiality for particular nations. When we start to think about our language and how it is understood outside of the church, then there will be change. I’m not talking about relevance or accessibility. Let me be clear – to the non-churchgoer, the church is full of perverts, anti gay and anti-women, believe… Read more »
I’m not sure what non-churchgoers think about the Church – if they think about it all.
As for communicating to modern generations “exactly what the label ‘God’ means”, do you give them a sermon on the Trinity or invite them to the Eucharist, with the possibility they may be caught up in the mystery that is God?
You definitely do not give a sermon on the Trinity. They would run out of the church screaming.
A sermon on the sermon on the mount should go down well.
Or a series of sermons.
Inviting them to the Eucharist? Maybe after a few weeks.
Shouldn;t leders of the churh be oncerned about what non-churchgoers think? They should give it a lot more thought compared to hankypanky in bed.
Wesley called the Eucharist a ‘converting ordinance’ – not a reward for the spiritually assured. Wisdom that the Church he remained a priest in would do well to remember.
Doesn’t belief in “God” mean a belief that there is something akin to mind or consciousness behind all of creation? And that the Universe is in some way “willed”, not meaningless. And so right and wrong, good and evil, have some objective reality, and are not merely human convention. And because we have minds/consciousness too and so can reach out and maybe connect to The Mind?
I have to be careful and be clear I am not suggesting throwing out the baby with the bath water. But, for various reasons,’God’ and ‘CoE’ are tainted brands amongst many. So I was interested in Gerry Lynch’s description of ietsism. So can your description be communicated without using the word ‘God’? As well as the creation aspect, a sense of love and forgiveness needs to be communicated. Difficult in current environment. Maybe there should be a survey of how Christianity and the church is communicated in the media (mainstream and social). That would be an interesting GS discussion. Do… Read more »
Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God, Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy. Irresistible grace. That’s what draws people in. You can see it on their faces. Different types of people, all ages, all backgrounds. All changed.
It can also feel pretty much like that to some occasions church goers who grew up within the institution….
do you think there’s a tension in the way you leap from ‘maybe’ to ‘is a’ and ‘needs to’?
None at all. When I say grammar, maybe i mean syntax. I am sure some erudite person here will explain all the different words meaning ‘God’ which have been used in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I’m not talking about changing the gospel. I am talking about overcoming tha barriers of language, and acknowledging they are barriers.
What is the theological difference between ‘God’ and ‘iet’? There are no doubt many, as there are between differences in understanding of ‘God’, but maybe those ietists are rejecting Godists because of a contamination of the word God.
‘Judeo-Christian’ is a horrid term used mostly by the far right.
I’m arriving late to comment on these three blogs. I count all three authors as friends, friends from my past as Founder and Director of Changing Attitude. Gerry Lynch was a founder member of Changing Attitude Ireland before arriving in the diocese of Salisbury and ending up as my parish priest in Worton. The first time I met Phil Groves was at a Changing Attitude meeting in Leicester and the first time I met Kelvin, founder of Changing Attitude Scotland, in person was at a meeting at the ACC offices in London. Like Phil, I attended two Lambeth Conferences, but… Read more »
Dear Colin, delighted to be your friend. It is hard to explain to people just what a joy the Anglican Communion can be. You will find I have tracked the division and devistation of GAFCON and allies in a chaper for Evangelical and Inclusive, but there is some hope in Brazil, Botswana and Jamaica where LGBTQI+ voices have not been silenced and Anglicans have been on their side. I hope you have followed what I have been witing about myself. I now know what it is to be vulnerable in my core as I am talked about as an object… Read more »
Dear Philip, you are very far from ‘an object’. I found your Via Media article lucid and valuable. You speak up for kindness, inclusion and diversity. Neuro-diversity is one precious example of diversity. It can have uncomfortable interfaces, but it also brings very precious gift to community – the gift of diverse ways of thinking and the gift of who a person is – and I am glad you speak up for people who have so much to offer, and who matter… as *human beings* and *children of God*. As you rightly say, our Lord Jesus engaged and went out… Read more »
Is Kelvin’s excellent piece .. the only reference on TA to the ACC?
We once had excellent coverage on these pages on more general Anglican affairs..
Is it really such a dead donkey?