Ian Paul Psephizo Where have all the clergy gone?
Donald Payne Surviving Church Iwerne in the 1980s
Michelle Burns Guarding the Flock Mind the Gap: When Bishop’s Mission Orders Outrun Governance
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love A Brief Very Personal Survey of Global Challenges on the Anniversary of 9/11
I have every sympathy with prophets who state the obvious – the question is for what purpose? It’s often said that the C of E enters the room just as everyone else is leaving. However I thought the intervention of the ABC on the Assisted Dying Bill was timely and hopefully can yet provide a prophetic voice for a church that has turned in and on itself.
There are Christians on both sides of the assisted dying argument. We have prophetic voices speaking from both camps – which is how it should be.
When does a cacophony of voices signal confusion rather than clarity?
You think it would have been better to have just one gospel rather than four? One creation account rather than two? Either Kings or Chronicles, but not both? Only one apostle penning epistles, rather than three or four? If God doesn’t think it’s healthy to present only one religious point of view, I don’t see why we should.
Two creation narratives? I think most people today in scholarship understand the editing that has gone on the make them complementary. “These are the generations” makes humanity generated out of the creation itself, according to God’s generating purposes. The verse does not now conclude a soi-distant creation account #1 as a discrete thing, but transitions to the creation of Adam and Eve.
For what it is worth on the topic de jour…
I am bit puzzled by your response to Janet Fife here. I think ‘complementary’ can only be used of the bible texts if its meaning includes ‘contrast’ and ‘contradiction’. The Bible text is not univocal. The creation accounts are a prime example. Two very different stories side by side (complementary?). In both, God is sole creator and life giver, but thereafter, they contrast and even contradict each other. In the first, humans are created last, the highpoint of creation and given dominion over what God has made. In the second, the human is created first, alone, in an empty world.… Read more »
There is an entire school of historical-critical scholarship which is tuned to classical theories (“two creation accounts assigned to P and J”) and looks beyond that for signs of final editing (“canonical shaping”). Classic articulation BS Childs, Introduction 1979, and a massive outpouring of work on post- source-critical reading in Anglophone, German, French and Israeil scholarship since that period. See, inter alia, the life work of David Carr. Critical in this instance is the editorial function of 2:4. These genealogical notices are the structural device crossing the entire book of Genesis. Childs’ offers the classic analysis in compact form in… Read more »
Theories come and theories go. Whatever the source-critical theories hold, it is evident that Jesus and the NT Church read creation in Genesis as one story and didn’t pit one against the other, as David Runcorn tries to do.
Perhaps David can tell us where to pick up a new copy of Q?
I think if you google “Q” you will find over 300 “solutions” to the synoptic problem. Which ought to indicate that the wrong question is being posed to the material at hand.
In what way is it evident?
David, thanks for your comment, I can relate to it. I have found the views of philosopher/theologian David Bentley Hart very interesting with regard to the possible application of the two different creation myths in Genesis taken together i.e. his book: All Shall Be Saved. Third Medication. What is a Person? A reflection on the Divine image ( Part II). Posting a ‘snippet’ here would distract from the intricacies of his treatment –got to read the whole thing. Of course, for myself, precisely because myths/bible stories are so amendable to a variety of readings and applications, even erudite ones, I… Read more »
David Bentley Hart is on proud notice as finding scripture totally immoral and of no use. He likes to think of his Christianity as sui generis. In 2025 Hart said that “the best designation I seem able to come up with for describing my general spiritual sensibility is that of ‘irreligious Christian’,” by which he means “the faith of someone—myself, that is—who has little or no natural aptitude for religious sentiment, enthusiasm, devotion, or ritual observance. … I have come to accept that I am a thoroughly secular man who happens to believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the… Read more »
I will comment on the controversy surrounding him below; but re: your first line, I have a different take. I’ve read two of his books, That All Shall Be Saved, and Theological Territories. For example, his treatment of The Lord’s Prayer based in part on his own translation makes a very compelling moral point: “it was originally, and remains, a prayer for the poor—a prayer, that is, for the poor alone to pray. Down the centuries, wealthy Christians have prayed it as well, of course, or at least have prayed a rough simulacrum of it. God bless them for their… Read more »
Thanks for this – from a fellow Bentley Hart fan.
Indeed, I got interested because his research interests include consciousness, and overlap with that of Lonergan–whom he appreciates, notwithstanding his at times critical appraisal of Aquinas. ( :
I came across this after midnight. Here he is discussing the creation myths and allegory, and why the bible can’t be read ‘literally’ . Its only about a dozen minutes. I couldn’t resist sending it.
https://youtu.be/BVPr2FZlR_A
oops! Another typo slips through. Above 3rd line “Third Medication”, that should read “Third Mediation”. Perhaps a TA induced Freudian slip. lol. David, upon reflection, I perhaps could have been a bit clearer on why I find Bentley-Hart’s take on the two Genesis creation myths interesting. He is writing from a kind of ‘freelance’ Eastern Orthodox perspective, keen about his favorite patristics theologians, and provides what might be called a kind of ‘neo-allegorization ” i.e. connecting the first creation story to God and eternity and the 2nd one to God in history, with an application of the two in terms… Read more »
David, it’s very strange that Jesus and his apostles didn’t read the Scriptures that way. A shame they didn’t have the benefit of post-modern reading strategies or whatever we called them in the 80s ….
In what way do you think they did read the scriptures? And on what evidence? None of them carried scriptures with them, so if they ever read them, it was only in a formal liturgical context. The psalms were the best known, and most used, scripture, and were undoubtedly committed to memory by quite a few people, just as the Quran is memorised by many people today.
There’s a difference between complementary accounts and a position on assisted suicide that contradicts the clear Christian consensus in history.
That’s where cacophony becomes a reasonable term to describe this.
Prophetic voices testify to one God and we don’t have a God of confusion but a God of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33).
In 1 and 2 Samuel the desire for a king is a departure from God’s will; in Kings monarchs are chosen and blessed by God. Moses lays down rules for divorce; Jesus decries divorce. Again and again through the Bible were presented with differing and sometimes contradictory points of view. Finding that uncomfortable, we elide together accounts which are quite different. What I see in the Bible is that God loves variety and difference – and expects us to love each other despite it, and even because of it.
It is far easier to teach students to see “contradiction” than to think through why two accounts are preserved in the present canonical form. Inspiration being the totality of the Spirit’s work in the compositional history and finalisation.
It’s easier because it’s true.
“Thinking through” why seemingly contradictory accounts co-exist, in order to maintain that they are not contradictory, at some point is just dishonest.
Of course all sorts of things in the Bible are contradictory because it is not magically reliable in the way so many Christians either assert or lack the courage openly to contradict.
““Thinking through” why seemingly contradictory accounts co-exist, in order to maintain that they are not contradictory, at some point is just dishonest.”
This isn’t at all what canonical interpretation is about, which relies on seeing distinctions and difference and then seeks to see the purpose in the final presentation.
“Contradiction” in its technical sense is a different category.
Isaiah did not write “Behold I send my messenger before thy face” as Saint Mark tells us. Or, if he did write that, it does not appear under his name in the Old Testament but under Malachi’s. Either the Gospel is correct and the Old Testament is wrong or vice versa. Which do you think?
And nowhere in the scriptures, canonical or apocryphal, can be found St Matthew’s assertion that the Messiah would be a Nazarene. Is the Gospel correct, and the Old testament faulty, or vice versa?
Which do you think, and why?
Nigel: then have courage and tell us which parts are true and which are false.
It is surely wrong to allow believers to assert false things. Tell us how you determine the correct parts of Scripture.
What i said required courage was to assert that the Bible is not reliable. So yes, i do have the courage to do that.
On the broader question of “which parts are true and which are not”, the key characteristic of liberal theology is acknowledging that a higher degree of uncertainty is appropriate. But my controlling hermeneutic is the emphasis of Jesus that we love God and love our neighbour.
PS–an anglican hermeneutic is obviously implied in Article XX.
Yes.
The question is why.
Evidently asking for a king wasn’t wrong, but the reasons why they asked for a king were. Namely to be like the other nations.
Similarly Christ even explains why the law was given around divorce. I’m unconvinced that at any stage divorce was regarded at good particularly when Malachi tells us that God hates it.
Yet divorce was instituted because of human sin.
These aren’t simply contradictory.
The two diametrically opposed positions you propose are.
So no I don’t believe prophetic voices that tell us fundamentally opposing things are from God.
I do not think the text supports your claim that asking for a king was OK – they just wanted the wrong sort. There is more than one voice speaking in the Samuel narrative. A number of conflicting factors were in play leading to this request. The people were anxious – present leadership was letting them down. There were rival tribal power groups, international and military unrest was rife, and there were issues of faith, theology and the identity of God’s people. Some believed a monarchy would help the nation find a new sense of security. Others regarded the request… Read more »
What is the point of this kind of analysis (arising in the late 18th century until our late modern period where loss of confidence in the “assured results of historical criticism” has faltered)? See the Poetics of Biblical Narrative by Meir Sternberg, and a host of others, on so-called contradictions. Is the idea to point to a “history of religion” the texts themselves are said to generate, above or behind their final form presentation? It has been noted, the irony that in seeking the “historical sense” a resultant system now governs the reading of the canonical text, in like manner… Read more »
You plainly despair of my attempts at contributing here. My theological method is stuck in the 18th century. Without asking, you assume I have done no serious theological reading. You send me away to read a 600 word tome – then there is Childs, the ‘massive outpouring of work post- source-critical reading in Anglophone, German, French and Israeli scholarship since that period’, the ‘entire school of historical-critical scholarship’ and ‘the life work of David Carr and ‘any number of more recent studies and their sophisticated unfolding’. Lord who can stand? I come to TA because I want to engage and to learn. I… Read more »
The treatment of Childs was chosen precisely because it covers about 2 pages. In a nutshell, you can see the approach and what it then engendered in terms of re-evaluating the legacy of source critical notions like “two independent creations accounts.” Lord who can stand? You can. If the simple anglican hermeneutic of Article XX helps, I commend it. I do find it a bit odd that at Thinking Anglicans we don’t see more engagement with modern exegetical trends and re-adjustments. Everything seems a bit stuck in the models of 30 years ago. Even von Rad, a year before his… Read more »
Thank you for your response and for your learning. I have read Childs actually and I freely admit my response to you was at the tired end of a long day But I hope you understand why. As it happens I have read, taught and published two books on Genesis and Samuel in recent years. The impact of mind and faith from those projects continues to be very significant, though I have never doubted I was barely scratching at the surface of it all. Let there be light.
Carry on my friend!
To be pedantically correct, calculus is a part of mathematics, involving algebra and geometry. But I like your analogy and would restate it as arithmetic versus calculus. David advocates a simplistic arithmetical approach to Scripture when it’s really complex and multi-level. Only in the fullness of the revelation of Christ do its parts make sense (including their prophetic significance).
I stand corrected, happily. Childs made the comment in passing a long time ago. He doubtless said “arithmetic” vs calculus. A classically trained historical and form critical scholar (Basel, Baumgartner), who saw its inability to grasp “calculus” when it came to evaluating the genius of the final form presentation — sum greater than parts.
It’s all a metaphor really…
Given that the law itself anticipates a monarchy in Israel at some stage I find that hard to square with that view. If God is sovereign and knew of the arrival of Christ as King of Israel that’s also a difficulty to simply saying that kings were absolutely wrong irrespective of circumstances. 1 Samuel 8 frames their requests very clearly under the pretext of wanting to be like other nations (verses 5, 19-20). In any case very different to a situation where there’s been a large consensus in Christian history and a modern outlier of people opposing that consensus and… Read more »
Through almost the entirety of Christian history it has been impossible for person to stay alive without being able to swallow or breathe for themselves; to live after losing huge quantities of blood or the use of their limbs. It is medical advances which have made it necessary to look at the issue again. I have not yet seen in this discussion anyone suggesting what first principles they are applying to the debate – merely some assumptions of what must be the ‘Christian’ response. I’m questioning assumptions – something you might have noticed I often do on TA (and elsewhere!).
David: but then God gives them ‘a man after my own heart’ and the Davidic monarchy becomes the seed-bed of messianism. Kingship per se is not wrong.
I think the arguments for and against assisted dying are much more nuanced and complex than you appear to do. I have been a hospice chaplain, spent much time visiting the sick, people in care homes, and the dying, and I have come to see the issue is a very complicated one, not one of ‘two diametrically opposed’ views. And we have made it much more complex with all the high tech and advanced methods which are able to keep people just about technically alive, at great expense and cost of pain and mental anguish, when they might prefer to… Read more »
Janet – the first necessity, said Confucius, is the rectification of names. It’s assisted *suicide, not dying.
A Christian looks carefully at what he or she is doing. We also look at the bigger picture: what it does to the healing professions, and to the slippery slope argument. The evidence from Canada and the Netherlands is not encouraging.
Janet, Having been heavily involved in a recent discussion on TA where it was one against many, I don’t have the bandwidth to get involved in this debate, which also seems to be also one against many (and, like many discussions on TA, also has an interesting gender split). But having also been a nurse working in cancer and occasional hospice settings I simply want to say that I strongly support your position. These are complex issues, with valid arguments on both sides. We should find a space to agree to disagree. The scriptural evidence is not univocal. These are… Read more »
Simon, quite apart from the threat of prosecution, is there not a moral difference between administering a drug to end life and administering a drug to relieve pain which will also hasten the end? The latter may allow the doctor to keep a clear conscience; the former….?
There may be a clear difference between these two cases when discussed theoretically on a blog, or in the classroom. But at two in the morning, when an overworked doctor or nurse is trying to calibrate the exact amount of morphine or diamorphine to give a patient in agony, enough to relieve their pain but not to kill them, and because the patient is slowly dying and their physiological processes are failing, any assessment of how well or badly that patient will react to morphine is partly guesswork, then those clear differences fade away, and you have to do the… Read more »
Thank you, Simon. I certainly defer to your knowledge of the practicalities.
Allan, thanks, but medical practitioners should not be the only voices. We need to listen to ethicists and theologians too, in a constructive conversation.
But my impression is that in the current debate that “practical” input is not breaking through into the debate
Best wishes.
You put it very well, Simon. As you say, thoughtful decision making is impacted by the current legal framework, which emphasises maximising life-span over other considerations.
Modern western or British culture views death as a disaster to be prevented under all circumstances. Of course that’s right for early deaths, but eventually death is inevitable for all of us and perhaps a more holistic approach is to recognise that in the fulness of time it needs to be best approached rather than postponed at all cost.
Thanks. Interesting that those who have actual experience (Janet and Simon) do not see these issues as binary. Simon has explained the complexity much better than I did below.
It is surely possible to uphold the dignity of life, and the God-given nature of life, without having to relentlessly keep life ticking away.
As often, the danger is that one starts arguing about a multiplicity of issues, which share few common features. What does quality palliative care have to do with travelling abroad for the purpose of dying?
Death, where is thy sting? Grave, where is thy victory?
Simon, this is a very insightful comment, in part because it is based upon your own experience as a clinician. We have several nurses in the family. Of the two most experienced ones, one is a lapsed R.C. with little time for the church who is very much opposed to MAiD here in Canada. The other, is a devout observant R.C. who is opposed to the church’s stance on MAiD based upon compassion and the right of patients to chose. I have witnessed many times btw at the bedside as a parish priest exactly what you describe in your final… Read more »
Ruairidh. Thank you, as always, for your encouragement and your comments. Whilst your early paragraphs are about this medical issue, I suspect your later paragraphs may relate to a different long recent discussion about sexuality in the Hebrew Scriptures. I am not discouraged. Whilst my comments there have been that “one against many”, what is less visible is how people who would never post publicly here find me online and contact me with encouragement, and to discuss the issues I raise. And that keeps me going. And as for the debate on Thinking Anglicans, I think Anglican Priest has described… Read more »
Right on Simon. It was a two point comment. I think we owe a lot to people who pioneered the development of new paradigms. There are some real watershed moments from past centuries, including the previous twentieth century; but finding a voice in the present time, using one’s voice in the present moment , is so crucial –especially in the current political climate, where using one’s voice to gain a hearing and understanding and justice will encounter well organized efforts at roll back and retrenchment. Thanks for sharing your research.
Exactly right, Ruairidh, it is a paradigm shift. It used to be thought that patriarchy was the natural universal state in history. But only in the last 20 years has that been challenged. There is an increasing acceptance that before patriarchy existed then cultures in which women had great personal, economic and sexual autonomy were widespread across the world. And in cultures where women’s roles were valued then gender variant people weren’t a problem, and often the sexual and erotic were valued in a spiritual/transcendence context You get it because you have ministered to First Nations people in Canada for… Read more »
Thanks Simon. Just getting to this now. Very interesting article. Archeology is a an exciting resource beyond texts for sure. Just for the record, I have not ministered among First Nations peoples. I did have a cohort of Mi’kmaq students in an introductory level university course I taught on world religions a number of years ago. I had some very interesting conversations with the students and folks at the Mi’kmaq centre regarding the corporate nature of child rearing. Here is a link to a very brief article describing current practices that have a long tradition. Thanks again. Traditional Parenting Practices… Read more »
What was the name of our Lord’s paternal grandad? Jacob or Heli?
Janet, if you find substantial (rather than formal or temporal) conflict in the Bible, then you ought to take a proper stand and declare which part is true and which is false. Desiring a king ‘like all the nations’ could be and was a sinful aspiration in that it sprang from a sinful desire; but a king ‘after my own heart’ is the seed-bed of messianism and doesn’t involve a contradiction. It all comes down to motive and purpose. And it is fundamental to the Bible that there is historical development in the chosen people and their covenants. And Jesus… Read more »
are you arguing that anyone supporting assisted dying cannot be a Christian? What is the ethical difference between going to a high cliff and jumping off, versus lying in a bed of pain and being given a drink which will achieve the same result (and save the emergency services an expensive and unpleasant task)?
I think the argument for assisted suicide (let’s call it what it really is) is secular and not Christian.
Why do you think so? What makes it unChristian? And if it is unChristian, how do you account for so many Christians supporting it?
What makes it unchristian is its normative assumption and assertion that the lives of the ill and suffering are disposable, in a way forbidden to the healthy. That secular, Nietzchean ethic is in ugly contradiction to the Gospel.
I would argue that a Christian can be wrong about assisted dying, two different and conflicting opinions are not both right. All believing the Nicene Creed at the same time does not mean everyone is equally right about everything.
Many debates are not about what is right, but rather about what is the least wrong. For example, nobody could ever suggest an abortion is good. But there is an argument that an abortion is less bad than not having an abortion. I use this simply as an example, not to start a battle over abortion. So, similarly, assisted dying is never good, it is simply less bad than long painful suffering. My own views on assisted dying are not yet formed – I would certainly need very strong reasons to administer (or take) a pill. Maybe instead of calling… Read more »
I’d say that abortion is pretty much never “less bad than not having an abortion”.
It’s another great evil that our society perpetuates en masse.
It’s instructive that you bring it up in the current discussion.
It’s another issue where there’s been a large Christian consensus in history.
“pretty much never” presumably implies that sometime it is?
Bar medical intervention to save a life.
Abortion as a “choice” is wicked though. The current situation is a moral blight on us.
Don’t forget that in previous generations, and in other parts of the world, infant mortality was huge.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041714/united-kingdom-all-time-child-mortality-rate/
I guess it was even worse in other countries.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1goyaco/when_child_mortality_was_very_high_how_did_people/
https://www.peterrazzell.co.uk/Papers/The_History_of_Infant_Child_and_Adult_Mo.pdf
I don’t get your point.
How does that relate to abortion other than a weird claim that we need abortion to keep infants dying?
Choosing to take the life of a child and a child tragically dying are very different things.
I always like to open up debate! One aspect – still born babies. In the past they (and possibly the mothers) died on birth, or were already dead. Nowadays, problems can be detected and abortions performed. Obviously. So, I am questioning whether there are cases in whch a baby, which is still alive but unborn, who has been detected with severe issues which will result in very early future death, prior to or shortly after birth, should be aborted. Clearly many think it should not. But others are not so sure. Prior to antenatal screening, these babies would simply die… Read more »
This presumes that we can definitively know that a child will absolutely die based on a screening. I’m not convinced that’s always true.
It also requires that we take the place of God in determining who lives and dies.
Besides you’re only speaking about roughly 1% of abortions carried out in the UK.
98% are carried out under Ground C which is risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (up to 24 weeks in the pregnancy) but in practice is effectively the elective option.
I would also point out that so-called Christian societies, now and in the past, have accepted, even encouraged, murder of adults for heinous, and not so heinous, crimes.
I don’t think there has been a consensus on all situations, a blanket ban.For example rape, danger to mother’s life, severe disabilities in baby. Similarly, there is no consensus that life should be supported whatever the circumstances. In both cases medicine has advanced. I don’t recall scripture talking about scans or tests for disabilities. Given that decisions are not binary, it can be very difficult to decide where the boundaries are. I understand that in the old days the doctors/nurses made decisions based on their good faith and judgement, and people were none the wiser. Overdose of heroin once the… Read more »
The ethical difference is massive, because the first act is that of an individual, whereas the second would be the expression, normalization and, over time, embedding, of a state-sponsored culture of death.
Janet: if one gospel said Jesus is the Son of God, another said he isn’t; if one said he died to take away our sins, another said he didn’t; one said he rose bodily from the grave, another denied this (and so on) …. then we would have a problem, Houston. You have confused multiple witnesses with contradiction and incoherence. This is definitely NOT what the Articles say: you may not ‘expound one Scripture that it be repugnant to another’. Maybe that’s what humanistic liberalism says but it is not and never has been the catholic approach to the Word… Read more »
I am not at all saying the Bible is incoherent. I am saying that it records multiple witnesses who do not all agree with each other, and who occasionally have opposing viewpoints. It records a people -and peoples – struggling towards the truth, often making mistakes. And, crucially, it shows us a God who forgives those who want to do right and long to be close to him. To return to the assisted dying debate, a number of people have asserted definitely that the Christian view is to oppose it, but none of them has stated the supposedly Christian reasons… Read more »
Please provide a quote from each of the four gospels demonstrating that Jesus died to take away our sins.
Mt 26:28 ‘This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins’ Mk 10:45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” Lk 24:46-47 “it is written that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” John 1:29 “Look, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” Acts 13:38-39 ““Therefore, my friends, I want… Read more »
Are you really satisfied with these answers? 2, 3 and 5 make no connexion at all between the death of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins. 1 refers to the shedding of blood not death. 4 Points to a living person who takes away the sins of the world (by his preaching and example)
I reckon they hold up – 1 Matthew refers to the ‘shedding of blood … for the forgiveness of sins’. Less than a day after that was said, Jesus had been crucified, died and pierced with a sword. 2 Mark mentions Jesus ‘giving his life’ as a ransom for many. What is that ransom for? 3. Luke’s verse talks of Jesus suffering, rising from the dead and forgiveness of sins. Viewing Luke-Acts as one work by one author, this is developed, for example, in Acts 10:43 ‘everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sin through his name’. 4. is… Read more »
Matthew, Matthew, are not yours perverse, conniving ideologically skewed misreadings of these texts, driven by an hermenuetic determined to find any desperate way NOT to understand them referring (as the church has always perceived) to Christ’s death? 1 refers to the shedding of blood not death. No, it points to the shedding of blood in death. 4 Points to a living person Yes, but the one who will consummate his role as lamb of God when he is sacrificed on the cross. You know all about the timing of the crucifixion in John’s account, and the point about the bones… Read more »
You have them provided below. Many more could follow.
Including the life of the Church down the ages, where these ‘quotes’ are alive and guiding, among others, saints, martyrs, faithful.
Who is Jesus for you otherwise?
I don’t know what you mean Christopher. Could you please refer me to a very long book on the subject (with IBSN number)?
No, but we could pray for you.
‘The scripture cannot be broken’ said the Lord of the church, but maybe that’s not as categorical a statement as it seems to be, since the same Lord of the church ‘declared all foods clean’ (in contradiction to scripture), and cancelled ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ for his followers (in contradiction to scripture). And as for ‘the catholic approach to the Word of God’ – well, the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament has always been difficult to define, and equally catholic Christians have taken different approaches. It has never been… Read more »
But on which side are the false prophets?
There are sound Christian arguments on both sides. I think the function of Christians in a national debate such as this one is to clarify what values are at issue and help people – especially legislators – decide where they stand.
And because one set of considerations give rise to another, and the entire discussion has to take place in the round. One one hand, there is the Christian call to care for people up to the point of losing our lives for theirs. On the other is a question of how many medical procedures are helpful as someone approaches the end of their life – at some point isn’t it best to make someone as comfortable as possible and help them finish the race with peace? On yet another hand is the consideration that a person might feel pressured into… Read more »
Thank you for this contribution, Rerum novarum. I would add that if/when I am a huge burden to my family, I want to be permitted to show my care for them by giving up my own life.
Whether being depressed counts or disqualifies, and how manipulation is guarded against are still huge questions.
Is that the only proper and permissible function of Christians in this debate? A. You’re happy to accord respect to both: Christians who support assisted dying and Christians who oppose assisted dying B. Do you accord respect to both: Christians who think assisted dying should be a matter of conscience, on which Christians can legitimately disagree, and Christians who think this is a matter of truth and falsehood, on which some Christians are faithful to revealed teaching, and some Christians are in error. If your answer to B is ‘yes’, then presumably you’ll respect those Christians who think the proper… Read more »
Or the answer to B2 is to respectfully ask what the revealed teaching is that Christians are called to be faithful to.
How much current teaching on the right to die is revealed, in the sense of the current medico-ethical situation being directly addressed in scripture? And how much is inferred? And how robust is the inference? And if it isn’t robust, then isn’t it valid to disagree with someone who asserts that their personal opinion is the revealed will of God?
Well, if two thousand years of Christian teaching about the sanctity of life, with consistent consequent prohibitions against abortion, infanticide, and indeed suicide tout court isn’t ‘robust’, then I for one struggle to imagine what could be. If you’re going to change Christian teaching on the sanctity of life (surely one of the most important areas of Christian ethics) isn’t the onus on the purveyors of novelty to demonstrate the robustness and necessity of the innovation? Not to say ‘we’re not sure about this, and there are arguments on both sides, but on balance we think it’s OK for the… Read more »
But to ask Gareth’s favourite and important question, what does the Bible say about it? Not much, perhaps the description of Saul’s death. The reason for innovation, and perhaps the lack of direct discussion in the Bible, is the changed circumstance: modern medicine can fairly reliably tell some people that they have limited time left; and it can prolong it a bit without providing much quality of life; or it could shorten it with perhaps less suffering. That information and possibility wasn’t widely available until recently in human history. The sanctity of life might include preventing suffering as much as… Read more »
I don’t need to affirm someone’s view in order to believe they have a right both to hold it and to argue for it. Nor does the fact that two people have contrasting views mean that one or both of them must simply be following fashion. I have changed my views on a number of issues over the years as Bible study, prayer, and life experience led me to do so. Some of my later views accord with what you might call ‘fashion’; some are distinctly unfashionable. Like the elders who accused the woman caught in adultery, I’ve learned to… Read more »
As Jesus commanded presumably.
And as head of the C of E there was a very clear statement that the Assisted Dying Bill as it stood would lead to vulnerable people being killed against their wishes. Do you not think that is possible, inevitable even? You can be as nuanced as you like but if there is a significant risk of people being put under pressure to die rather than live for a host of motives including financial, then that is an evil to avoided. For personal reasons I was grateful that this statement was clear and, from my perspective, prophetic.
That is the fear some people have, but the law can be drafted to safeguard against that possibility. As it is, we now have people condemned to live in extreme suffering against their wishes. The two sides must be balanced against each other.
Indeed. Prophetic voices may be on both sides. But prophecy is tested by the Church, not just individuals – not even those who shout the loudest.
I really don’t see how voices contradicting each other can both be under the full guidance of the Spirit, so prophetic in the full sense. One of the voices must be proclaiming something which is at least in part false
My post was a response to Ian’s “on which side are the false prophets?” – and I did qualify it with “may”. Meanwhile nothing I’ve heard from those calling for the Church to support assisted dying looks likely to survive testing in the community of faith. And until they meet this bar, their voices cannot be deemed prophetic.
Janet, if you have ‘prophetic voices speaking from both camps’ then one set (at least) has to be false prophets. Which one is it?
Assisted suicide was debated at length on the Sunday afternoon at the July 2022 synod. The aim was to try to come to a consensus view for the Church of England that would form the basis of its stance in the debate. It’s true we will not all agree but we do need to have a stated position as a church For any who haven’t watched the debate it is available on YouTube I think at the time all the major arguments were fairly comprehensively covered
Ian Paul’s article begins ‘The harsh reality of demographics means that the numbers of stipendiary clergy will continue to decline significantly over the next ten years.’ This is also true of the laity. With a high percentage of regular church attenders over the age of 70, thousands of churches will close over the next decade. Realistically we are going to need far fewer clergy going forward, and most of them will need to be non-stipendiary. Save the Parish, and Ian Paul, are obsessed with stipendiary clergy – they want to keep numbers as high as possible, ordain younger people, train… Read more »
My experience of non-stipendiary clergy is that so many of them want a stipendiary post at the first opportunity.The idea that we can have non-stipendiary parochial clergy supervised by stipendiary higher clergy was once quite popular, but I fear that it was soon seen to be unrealistic.
That’s an interesting observation. I’ve been both in my time (though had a full-time sector ministry paid by a body outside the C of E when I was an SSM) and worked with/trained a lot of SSMs. I don’t think that’s where a lot of SSMs start out – many have quite a clear view of the expression of ministry they are drawn to. For a long time I was very envious because whilst they were very committed to their roles in the Church, their ministries as assistant clergy offered so much potential to specialise in aspects that brought them… Read more »
I completely agree. This needs to be factored into the conversation and it’s too often not. There is a *current* issue with filling stipendiary clergy vacancies but it’s a temporary issue that will likely recede. Most posts will be non-stipendiary and it’s hard to transition back into secular work after taking an extended period of time out for training/curacy. The focus on later life ordinations via the Elizabeth stream is (in my view) sensible. It’s a cohort of older people, already experienced in leadership in their church/parish/benefice, and typically able to self-support financially. This gives one way of alleviating some… Read more »
It’s funny that we are not (in theory) alowed to be a “priesthood of all believers”. I, when I was a CW, would lead services about 2-3 times a year. I don’t think I’m allowed to now unless I go on a year long course, which is quite demanding of time. In fact, I have now read that I wasn’t ever allowed to preach a sermon. Well, tbh I almost always read something that I found useful personally, sometimes with an appropriate piece of music afterwards for reflection. I sometimes added my own bits to the talk but didn’t feel… Read more »
My understanding is that in the Chelmsford Diocese at least the PCC can authorise a member of the congregation to administer the chalice. I only found out I had been authorised when I was told I was administering that morning!
It used to be the case that authorisation for lay people to distribute communion could only be given by the bishop. But in 2105 Canon B12 was amended and the bishop can now allow suffragan bishops, archdeacons and/or incumbents. to give authorisation. Details can be found in the Administration of Holy Communion Regulations 2015. Presumably the Bishop of Chelmsford has given this authority to all incumbents in her diocese.
Thank you for this sober-minded reminder. “With a high percentage of regular church attenders over the age of 70, thousands of churches will close over the next decade. Realistically we are going to need far fewer clergy going forward, and most of them will need to be non-stipendiary.” I don’t suspect the amortization schedule would be difficult to set out. What do you think the number will be when the plus 70 cohort are gone? If they represent 75% of present church-goers, there could be 200,000 in church on Sunday across the entire nation? I’d be curious what you think.… Read more »
Sam, I’d welcome some response from you or others about the numerical realities and the future when the plus 70 cohort are gone. Are people in the CofE discussing this — Bishops, clergy, laity? The admonishments of Froghole — are they not to be heeded or evaluated, minimally? He seemed to be the rare reailist here who saw the obvious challenge for what it is. I have a PTO in the CofE but I think most anglicans worldwide care about what is going on in the territory where a new church sought to find logic and durability through time. In… Read more »
It may not be as bad as it sounds. Viewing the over 70s cohort as the over 65s cohort provides a different interpretation: instead of their preponderance denoting the passing of previous church-going generations, it may in part reflect that reitired people have more time to go to church, and so this cohort might be more self-renewing than thought. , Also the church commissioners are slowly building up a massive amount of money: they are now up to £11.6 billion, and have been getting returns of 8% for some time. While they might be prudent to carry on building this… Read more »
How does that arrest the fall? Actuarial reality–plummeting numbers and death rates vastly overshadowing baptisms– isn’t offset by money.
Moreover, who knows what the commissioners are up to in actual fact. There are already probably 60% more buildings than are needed.
The fate of the Church of Scotland is a sobering comparable.
My point is that the doomsday scenario of the CofE not being able to afford to hire any new personnel and going out of business isn’t going to haippen. Ian Paul is basically right that we should be looking to hire more people and younger people. That’s not irresponsible, because the money is there to employ them for life. The key question is when does the church start spending big? Leaving it later strengthens the position financially but weakens it in terms of people. Crucially, you can have all the money in the world to hire people, but it’s no… Read more »
I understand your point but wonder if it exists inside a situation you are not speaking to: the numerical collapse.
One can hoard and increase, or spend and hope, but the demographics and aging are still there.
Reminds me of a conversation with my old PhD supervisor about English cricket. I had a scheme for improving it involving an academy, mentoring and changing the county championship. He thought it was a load of rubbish and we needed a few talented charismatic people to turn up and win exciting matches. He was proved right when Andrew Flintoff, Kevin Pietersen and Alastair Cook began playing. Likewise, we need someone like St Francis, or Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier, or John and Charles Wesley to repair the ruined house. The wind blows where it wills, we can’t see where it… Read more »
Did you do a PhD?
That might be what God has in mind. He knows. In the meantime, reality is something we can’t just hide from. I hope this problem can be faced thoughtfully and concretely. Grace and peace.
Interestingly, English cricket now has an academy, mentoring and a modified county championship – ie, they made structural changes to give themselves the best chance, but turning round a difficult situation still required brilliant players to emerge.
The church should make the most of the last ten years of life we have before the robots kill us and spend everything it’s got.
First Things writes, inter alia, “The denomination has been the established church in England continuously since the seventeenth century, but its origins stretch back to the Reformation. Its (temporal) head is King Charles III, and its bishops sit in the House of Lords, but its nominal flock, the English, are a thoroughly irreligious lot. Just 5 percent of British adults attend church weekly, a figure that rises to a mere 13 percent for professed Christians. The collapse in formal worship in the United States in recent years might leave American clergy despairing, but their English brethren would consider such numbers… Read more »
I understabnd the upcoming ‘rave inthe nave’ at St Pauls is neither a rave nor in the nave. No alcohol, no dancing, music no more radical than you hear every Sunday at Notre Dame.
I think Anglican Priest probably referred to the concept rather than an upcoming event. To its shame, I regret to say, ‘The rave in the nave’ first occurred in Winchester Cathedral around 43 years ago. An early symptom of the precarious finances our cathedrals face.
Thank you, yes. I think the fate of the Church of England and its logic as now nearly 500 years on, vis-a-vis its originating sense of self, remains relevant to anglicanism as a global phenomenon. The latter can carry on, of course, and will do. But history doesn’t disappear into the ether, as Faulkner reminded us. It carries on in ways we forget at our peril. With apologies to IPhone iteration ____.
Rerum Novarum, Ref your first paragraph. There is some truth in this. As a person trained for ministry in my late 50s I was surrounded by those of a similar age, both ordained and lay ministry. Such people can make a strong contribution, but there are limits to how much they can help the problems. People in their 60s simply don’t have the same energy levels and stamina as someone in mid-life, and cannot do the same amount of work (I speak from experience). And the return on the investment is much less in terms of years served against training… Read more »
I could not agree more, Simon. With age comes wisdom but we need strength and energy as well, which means recruiting young people to ministry.
C of E statistics show that c.35% of attendees are over 70. There is no breakdown of age bands beyond 18-69 but I suspect a high percentage of that group are aged 60-69. Before COVID, C of E attendance was falling at about 2% a year. There have been modest increases over the last few years, but the numbers are still well below 2019 levels. Many churches are attended virtually exclusively by people over the age of 70, and will be closing in the next decade. I see little discussion in the C of E about the forthcoming demographic collapse.… Read more »
I am grateful for your reply. God bless, I hope that this topic is not left to time’s march, because it will march…
In spite of Makin and the numerous other sources, including ‘Bleeding for Jesus’, I tend to believe that we are a long way from getting a full definitive history or full understanding of Smyth’s complex personality and his actions in England or Africa. Donald Payne’s article on ‘Surviving Church’ is, I feel, very helpful in pointing to Smyth’s targeting individuals or individual groups without necessarily any abuse occurring. Remember that Smyth was a QC and a Recorder of the Crown Court, outwardly a successful person and a pillar of society. On a ‘Surviving Church’ thread Winchester College boys (now men,… Read more »
Colin Coward speaks with wonderful eloquence and perceptiveness. One observation about the “intrusion” of immigrants and cultures that is seemingly viewed as destructive to the British way of life is the hypocrisy of it. The “Great” Britain that so many crave is the old colonial empire where Britain expanded it’s influence and dominance across the globe to assert its hegemony over others. They were not invited and at times were met with great hostility. Many of those people who were colonized are now part of what is know as the Commonwealth and many want to live in Britain. Odd then… Read more »
About 1% of illegal migrants crossing in small boats come from commonwealth countries. It is this uncontrolled migration that unsettles people. Members of the commonwealth have legally replaced EU workers who left following Brexit. Indeed one can argue that it is the lack of British values in non-commonwealth countries that is driving illegal migration and the gangs who are behind it.
People fear the unknown. The inability of the Home Office to track immigrants, and the unreliability of official figures, fuels discord. Plus communication of actual known immigration figures is absent from much of the media. Maybe a poster campaign by the government on the statistics? Number of boats, Number of people on boats, Age/sex/demographics of boats? What happens to them? What is rate of processing? How many are at appeal stage? What is chanceo success at appeal? How many are rejected, and where are they sent? Etc. Etc. Etc. Maybe the government is afraid of talking about the statistics because… Read more »
Why should the monarch and prime minister, both of whom are quite possibly atheists have any role in the appointment of Church of England bishops ? Why do Church of England bishops sit by right in the House of Lords. Why should the Archbishop of Canterbury crown our head of state ? I understand the historical context but I think establishment is now a millstone around the kneck of the Church of England which is too often an adjunct of England’s political establishment. I look over the border to Wales and I see an Anglican Church free to be a… Read more »
Totally agree with David.
David, there is so much in your post that I agree with, but could I respectfully offer a point of correction about the faith (or not) of the Prime Minister. There is an informative leader and article about Andy Burnham in The Tablet magazine of 27th June. He is a cradle Catholic whose views and values have been strongly influenced by Catholic Social Teaching. Perhaps more than any recent Prime Minister he is the man whose politics have been influenced, for good, by his Christian faith. Despite this “restrictions set out in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the… Read more »
“Had he been atheist (like Blair)” — I don’t think Mr Blair can be accused of atheism. Perhaps you meant Sir Keir Starmer?
That’s a fair point Simon. Perhaps I was confused by Alistair Campbell’s “we don’t do God”. But Sir Keir Starmer would have fitted perfectly well into my post.
And I am not sure where Tony Blair is with Catholic Social Teaching, despite his faith
Thank you.
I wonder whether the present indicative used in “Why should the monarch and prime minister, both of whom are quite possibly atheists have any role in the appointment of Church of England bishops ?” really should be a conditional/subjunctive to reflect the hypothetical nature of the question. Mr Sunak’s beliefs (I once lived in his constituency) made for some interesting reflection at the time of his appointment, of course.
As the PM took the oath after returning to parliament, he took the religious oath rather than the atheist affirming. Bit of a clue thete.
Outstanding because Cherry Vann is a lesbian, not because she is English presumably? I never am quite sure how far this divisive identity politics goes, yet supposedly is a basis for unity.
Oh dear, does every conversation have to be subverted into a discussion of human sexuality? I’m reminded of Lionel Blue’s comment about how an unrepaid debt inserted itself into everything he thought and did as he found himself adding ‘and my thousand pounds’ to all his interactions.
Cherry Vann is an outstanding Archbishop. Her sexual orientation should be irrelevant but unfortunately in the Church of England it isn’t. I find the concept of a “loving God” who creates people with a need to love someone of their own gender and then wants to punish them beyond ludicrous and my opinion isn’t altered by what human beings wrote two thousand years ago. We have zero evidence that Jesus was homophobic.
Hear, hear, David!
I’m moderately relaxed about allowing Catholics and Jews to advise the Crown about Church appointments, AS LONG AS THEY DON’T ACTUALLY INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME. That’s the current (relatively novel, in historical terms) modus operandi, but is it assured for the future? I don’t think it can be.
At the risk of sounding uncharitable, the staunch Methodist Margaret Thatcher is alleged to have put her finger on the scales in the appointment of George Carey. I often wonder what an Habgoodian 1990’s CofE might have been like.
Indeed, could something similar happen again?
I also heard that Mrs Thatcher made it clear that Jim Thompson would never become a Diocesan while she was Prime Minister. He had to wait until John Major had succeeded her before being translated to Bath & Wells. Richard Chartres replaced him in Stepney.
I think Jim Thompson was in line for Birmingham but Mark Santer went there instead.
The Thatcher element in this was reputed to be a little stronger: if you wanted a particular candidate for any appointment, just put Jim Thompson first and she would automatically strike him off and the second would then get appointed without more ado. Probably apocryphal but in character.
My recollection is that although Margaret Thatcher was a cradle Methodist she became a communicant member of the Church of England, and was such during her period as Prime Minister.
A Bill is being presented to Parliament today in these terms:
“A Bill to repeal provision which prohibits persons of the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths from advising the Crown on appointments in the Church of England or Church of Scotland; and to repeal provision which precludes such persons from making ecclesiastical appointments”.
As always, we can only wait and see how matters turn out.
The Bill can be read here https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-02/0150/260150.pdf
And there are explanatory notes here.
Establishment may be doing no favours to the CofE (perhaps, although other thoughts occur) but we should consider as well whether establishment does any favours to England, and that might lead to a different conclusion.