Andrew Atherstone seems remarkably sympathetic to the rogue ordinations. Is it not essentially fraud for people who have:
* not been through an authorised selection process;
* not completed an authorised course of study and/or workplace experience; and
* not been ordained by an authorised person within the Church of England
to pass themselves off as Church of England clergy?
Surely there is a basic principle of truthfulness that is being flouted by these practices, that should be condemned by faithful members of the General Synod?
I didn’t see it as being sympathetic. It was generally a factual description of what is going on. A critique would have been a very different article.
The one phrase which stood out for me was:
“and to ensure we do not lose a generation of gifted gospel workers to ordained ministry” (Morrison)
It doesn’t make any sense to me. It is logically incoherent. These people were being (rogue) ordained. Are they going to be lost or not? Are not ordained ministers also, by nature, gifted gospel workers?
It read to me as both sympathetic and critical – see the 3 point section at the end entitled ‘Critique’. In other words, thoughtful and measured, rather than a partisan celebration, or an indignant harrumphing dismissal.
I think that what is happening is deeply problematic, but can understand the theological motivation that is driving it.
I agree. The C of E has a formal pathway for those who beleive they are called to be priests. Outside that, those who follow other paths have no standing. If they wish to minister in the C of E, there are ways of getting your previous ministry affirmed, as with many ex – RC priests. I’m surprised that the usually sensible Andrew is not more strict about this.What I like about the C of E is what is generally clarity about structure and authorisation. These schismatic bodies which claim to hold reformation purity make me think of the Exclusive… Read more »
‘What I like about the C of E is what is generally clarity about structure and authorisation.’ Many will have sympathy. Let all things be done decently and in order. I’m quite dubious about these irregular ordinations, but I do wonder a couple of things. Firstly, whether the C of E can be held together by ‘clarity about structure and authorisation’, when there is such disagreement around what we actually believe. A priority of form over content and meaning seems, to me, to leave us with a hollowed out ecclesial life. Bishops become discredited managers – increasingly risible brokers of… Read more »
I’m concerned for the long-term well-being of the ordinands themselves. They can’t actually pass themselves off as CofE clergy when it comes to applying for positions in parishes. So their future careers will be limited to a small number of CofE churches with the conviction and financial resources to appoint ministers outside the regular CofE process and to pay stipends, pensions, housing etc. That leaves these people dependent for the rest of their lives on the good-will of a small network. And that might get difficult because some senior conservative evangelical leaders have, in the recent past, manipulated younger people… Read more »
Yes, the inspiration is likely Wesley’s use of irregular ordinations to meet a growing need for ministers – showing the approach has been used for good and that the CofE can’t be complacent re the need for priests to proclaim the good news. Had Wesley already seen substantial growth before his ordinations? Did he know there were going be sustainable jobs? This will be probably presented to the ordinands as an exciting step of faith – which is great when you’re 30, less good when you’re 60 and out of career options. But the (regularly ordained) people encouraging it will… Read more »
Weren’t Wesley’s irregular ordinations intended to meet a shortage caused by the independence of the USA? They could not be ordained regularly without an oath to the King, which they could not take because they were U.S. citizens. They were not intended for ministry in England.
There were at the time no American bishops.
Zebedee must have been concerned at the career prospects of his sons.
Zebedee would surely have been rightly concerned if the founder of Christianity had asked James and John to give up their fishing jobs while he carried on running the family carpentry business. But he didn’t.
Or he might have said that if other people chose to throw away their careers that was their affair. Zebedee had devoted a lot to building up his business, as evidenced by the number of hired men he employed.
Bringing the situation up to today. The CofE has commissioned reports to stop repeats of Smyth’s and Fletcher’s adverse influence on people. So surely it would make no sense for it to conclude that if other conservative evangelical leaders persuaded people merely to throw their careers away, that is their affair and absolutely fine.
If I understand your point then all private and international denominations should be discouraged because safeguarding can only be secured in the Established Church. After all, they are the ones who constantly commission reports.
It is not as if the C of E actually acts on reports.
But also there must be very many ordinands who are persuaded or inspired to follow a vocation even when better career options, in the worldly sense, are available.
Thanks William, Jesus’ call to follow him can involve losing possessions and status to do more and better for God, the magis of Ignatius Loyola. It’s therefore admirable when people put their livelihoods on-the-line to follow Jesus, and it’s imperative to realize the greater good it makes possible, rather than for it be impeded by the structures in which they work. Previous conservative evangelical experiments with irregular church governance, such as in Durham, have run into difficulty. So, I hope that good structures are in place to help these people’s ministries flourish, and to ensure that as the years tick by,… Read more »
‘if it was not for the Law & Religion UK reports, the very existence of these ordinations would be unknown to the wider church.’
That is condemnation in itself, surely.
Btw I don’t think it’s fraud so much as fabrication; a temporary construction, pending their assumption of ecclesial authority, once some version of Christian Nationalism assumes political authority, which is a project I suspect they might welcome, if indeed they are not working towards.
He seems far too sympathetic to me too, to the point that I cannot read this as impartial, detached, reportage. Why have the ‘ordinands’ and their sponsoring churches or parishes not been named? Who is being protected from being disciplined, in whose interest is that, and why?
Last edited 8 days ago by Patrick Comerford
Allan Sheath
20 days ago
Andrew Atherstone has supported the actions of a ‘tainted’ diocesan who has invited a ‘sound’ bishop to conduct ordinations in his diocese. And this on the grounds that it will keep the Church together. Clearly it hasn’t worked – the appetite only growing with feeding. I also find it bizarre how a sect which has resurrected the BCP Ordinal can ignore both the Eucharist and Article XXVI: “of the unworthiness of ministers which hinders not the effect of the sacrament.”
I agree with Maggi Dawn about the Apostles’ Creed, but the Nicene Creed is different. It was Constantine’s attempt to unite the empire behind a single cult, much as some predecessors had attempted to unite the empire behind the cult of other gods. By Constantine’s time Christianity was the obvious cult. But (1) a unifying cult couldn’t be led by bishops who spent their time disagreeing with each other, so he obliged them to hammer out a statement of what all Christians believed, using his power to exile bishops who dissented. (2) previous emperors doing this kind of thing took… Read more »
Interesting, thank you. Would you cease or limit its liturgical use? Is it possible that alongside the political motivation it also had and has a doxological function? Surely as well as for feeding the hungry, pre-Constantinian Christians were also known for the believing that Jesus – not the Emperor – was Lord and Saviour?
I would think that the Roman and imperial responsibility for Jesus’ death is very distinctly expressed in the Creed by the naming of Pontius Pilate. Don’t see how it could have been more up front. Of course it was universally believed among Christians, at least by then, that Jesus was innocent, ie had not expressed any hostility to the Empire.
I think that the creeds are ckecklists of beliefs. Nothing wrong with that in itself
Adrian Clarke
19 days ago
The Guardian piece is telling in itself. Christian comes out as Christian. What further revelations can we expect ‘Church of England believes its own doctrine’? Now that would be front page news!
What about reading a bit further about the revelations concerning Ashley Cain who has of course spoken out publicly about the importance of his Christian faith over the years. There’s probably a parable in this somewhere…
Lottie Lloyd
19 days ago
“Alternative Anglican ordinations”. The word we are looking for is “schism”.
Yes exactly: we live in Yorkshire. In Yorkshire misogyny is misogyny, and schism is schism (See Canon A8: for the avoidance of doubt that is CofE Canons).
It would be interesting to know if these men are being deployed in a Church of England parish as, say, a lay minister. Or whether they will function in church plants or fellowships outside the C of E or semi- detached from it. It will be interesting if this all comes up in questions at the July Synod.
Andrew Atherstone seems remarkably sympathetic to the rogue ordinations. Is it not essentially fraud for people who have:
* not been through an authorised selection process;
* not completed an authorised course of study and/or workplace experience; and
* not been ordained by an authorised person within the Church of England
to pass themselves off as Church of England clergy?
Surely there is a basic principle of truthfulness that is being flouted by these practices, that should be condemned by faithful members of the General Synod?
I didn’t see it as being sympathetic. It was generally a factual description of what is going on. A critique would have been a very different article.
The one phrase which stood out for me was:
“and to ensure we do not lose a generation of gifted gospel workers to ordained ministry” (Morrison)
It doesn’t make any sense to me. It is logically incoherent. These people were being (rogue) ordained. Are they going to be lost or not? Are not ordained ministers also, by nature, gifted gospel workers?
No, completely incoherent.
It read to me as both sympathetic and critical – see the 3 point section at the end entitled ‘Critique’. In other words, thoughtful and measured, rather than a partisan celebration, or an indignant harrumphing dismissal.
I think that what is happening is deeply problematic, but can understand the theological motivation that is driving it.
Agreed. You said it better than I.
And what safeguarding training and checks have been carried out?
I agree. The C of E has a formal pathway for those who beleive they are called to be priests. Outside that, those who follow other paths have no standing. If they wish to minister in the C of E, there are ways of getting your previous ministry affirmed, as with many ex – RC priests. I’m surprised that the usually sensible Andrew is not more strict about this.What I like about the C of E is what is generally clarity about structure and authorisation. These schismatic bodies which claim to hold reformation purity make me think of the Exclusive… Read more »
Being strict didn’t help the Exclusive Brethren either.
‘What I like about the C of E is what is generally clarity about structure and authorisation.’ Many will have sympathy. Let all things be done decently and in order. I’m quite dubious about these irregular ordinations, but I do wonder a couple of things. Firstly, whether the C of E can be held together by ‘clarity about structure and authorisation’, when there is such disagreement around what we actually believe. A priority of form over content and meaning seems, to me, to leave us with a hollowed out ecclesial life. Bishops become discredited managers – increasingly risible brokers of… Read more »
I’m concerned for the long-term well-being of the ordinands themselves. They can’t actually pass themselves off as CofE clergy when it comes to applying for positions in parishes. So their future careers will be limited to a small number of CofE churches with the conviction and financial resources to appoint ministers outside the regular CofE process and to pay stipends, pensions, housing etc. That leaves these people dependent for the rest of their lives on the good-will of a small network. And that might get difficult because some senior conservative evangelical leaders have, in the recent past, manipulated younger people… Read more »
Sounds a bit like Methodism in its early, vibrant, exciting years?
Yes, the inspiration is likely Wesley’s use of irregular ordinations to meet a growing need for ministers – showing the approach has been used for good and that the CofE can’t be complacent re the need for priests to proclaim the good news. Had Wesley already seen substantial growth before his ordinations? Did he know there were going be sustainable jobs? This will be probably presented to the ordinands as an exciting step of faith – which is great when you’re 30, less good when you’re 60 and out of career options. But the (regularly ordained) people encouraging it will… Read more »
Weren’t Wesley’s irregular ordinations intended to meet a shortage caused by the independence of the USA? They could not be ordained regularly without an oath to the King, which they could not take because they were U.S. citizens. They were not intended for ministry in England.
There were at the time no American bishops.
Zebedee must have been concerned at the career prospects of his sons.
William, seemingly there were irregularity issues in both Britain and the USA, and they progressed faster in America.
https://firebrandmag.com/articles/wesleyans-and-episcopacy
Zebedee would surely have been rightly concerned if the founder of Christianity had asked James and John to give up their fishing jobs while he carried on running the family carpentry business. But he didn’t.
I thought the founder of Christianity was a tent maker.
Or he might have said that if other people chose to throw away their careers that was their affair. Zebedee had devoted a lot to building up his business, as evidenced by the number of hired men he employed.
Bringing the situation up to today. The CofE has commissioned reports to stop repeats of Smyth’s and Fletcher’s adverse influence on people. So surely it would make no sense for it to conclude that if other conservative evangelical leaders persuaded people merely to throw their careers away, that is their affair and absolutely fine.
If I understand your point then all private and international denominations should be discouraged because safeguarding can only be secured in the Established Church. After all, they are the ones who constantly commission reports.
It is not as if the C of E actually acts on reports.
But also there must be very many ordinands who are persuaded or inspired to follow a vocation even when better career options, in the worldly sense, are available.
Thanks William, Jesus’ call to follow him can involve losing possessions and status to do more and better for God, the magis of Ignatius Loyola. It’s therefore admirable when people put their livelihoods on-the-line to follow Jesus, and it’s imperative to realize the greater good it makes possible, rather than for it be impeded by the structures in which they work. Previous conservative evangelical experiments with irregular church governance, such as in Durham, have run into difficulty. So, I hope that good structures are in place to help these people’s ministries flourish, and to ensure that as the years tick by,… Read more »
‘if it was not for the Law & Religion UK reports, the very existence of these ordinations would be unknown to the wider church.’
That is condemnation in itself, surely.
Btw I don’t think it’s fraud so much as fabrication; a temporary construction, pending their assumption of ecclesial authority, once some version of Christian Nationalism assumes political authority, which is a project I suspect they might welcome, if indeed they are not working towards.
He seems far too sympathetic to me too, to the point that I cannot read this as impartial, detached, reportage. Why have the ‘ordinands’ and their sponsoring churches or parishes not been named? Who is being protected from being disciplined, in whose interest is that, and why?
Andrew Atherstone has supported the actions of a ‘tainted’ diocesan who has invited a ‘sound’ bishop to conduct ordinations in his diocese. And this on the grounds that it will keep the Church together. Clearly it hasn’t worked – the appetite only growing with feeding. I also find it bizarre how a sect which has resurrected the BCP Ordinal can ignore both the Eucharist and Article XXVI: “of the unworthiness of ministers which hinders not the effect of the sacrament.”
I agree with Maggi Dawn about the Apostles’ Creed, but the Nicene Creed is different. It was Constantine’s attempt to unite the empire behind a single cult, much as some predecessors had attempted to unite the empire behind the cult of other gods. By Constantine’s time Christianity was the obvious cult. But (1) a unifying cult couldn’t be led by bishops who spent their time disagreeing with each other, so he obliged them to hammer out a statement of what all Christians believed, using his power to exile bishops who dissented. (2) previous emperors doing this kind of thing took… Read more »
Interesting, thank you. Would you cease or limit its liturgical use? Is it possible that alongside the political motivation it also had and has a doxological function? Surely as well as for feeding the hungry, pre-Constantinian Christians were also known for the believing that Jesus – not the Emperor – was Lord and Saviour?
I would think that the Roman and imperial responsibility for Jesus’ death is very distinctly expressed in the Creed by the naming of Pontius Pilate. Don’t see how it could have been more up front. Of course it was universally believed among Christians, at least by then, that Jesus was innocent, ie had not expressed any hostility to the Empire.
I think that the creeds are ckecklists of beliefs. Nothing wrong with that in itself
The Guardian piece is telling in itself. Christian comes out as Christian. What further revelations can we expect ‘Church of England believes its own doctrine’? Now that would be front page news!
What about reading a bit further about the revelations concerning Ashley Cain who has of course spoken out publicly about the importance of his Christian faith over the years. There’s probably a parable in this somewhere…
“Alternative Anglican ordinations”. The word we are looking for is “schism”.
With a large side dish of misogyny for good measure
Yes exactly: we live in Yorkshire. In Yorkshire misogyny is misogyny, and schism is schism (See Canon A8: for the avoidance of doubt that is CofE Canons).
It would be interesting to know if these men are being deployed in a Church of England parish as, say, a lay minister. Or whether they will function in church plants or fellowships outside the C of E or semi- detached from it. It will be interesting if this all comes up in questions at the July Synod.