I am most grateful to Dr Percy for referencing the new book ‘Superpower Britain’ in his second essay. The book aims to address how the hubris of wartime planners turned into the nemesis of postwar policymakers and did so within the very short time span of 1943/44 to 1947/49. However, it also takes aim at the voluminous literature of ‘declinism’, which kicked off with Andrew Shonfield’s seminal ‘British Economic Policy Since the War’ (1958), which had a transformative impact upon Whitehall, and led to the self-fulfilling belief that there was nothing which the UK could do well, or perhaps at… Read more »
Thank you, Froghole. As ever, I sincerely appreciate your insights for their breadth and depth. These essays are part of the wider agenda and approach that I’ve been cultivating within the field of critical grounded ecclesiology over the past few decades. It is becoming an urgent task as academics seek to understand the deeper reasons for what looks like irreversible church decline in the western world. Traditional approaches to secularisation (stemming from 1960s sociology) are no longer adequate. At the same time, trying to develop an account for decline through theological debates (e.g., liberal vs conservative etc) is just as… Read more »
Very many thanks indeed for your kind remarks (though I fear any ecclesiology of mine is of a featherweight variety, if that). I should add that I very much appreciate your essays, but what – for me – is especially useful about them is that they put into ever starker relief how decreasingly useful the Church of England has become as a church. It is not merely the attenuation of pastoral provision at the local level, but the manner in which it has, by degrees, slipped into a condition of almost complete stasis – a condition amplified by the partisanship… Read more »
Thank you, Froghole. Agreed. And I should have added in response to ‘Homeless Anglican’ below that the patient is in denial over the seriousness of their condition, yet still regards themselves as a fit and healthy physician to the soul of the nation, and cannot err in practice. So on CofE safeguarding, despite a long and consistent record of botched procedures and methods, with policies and practices causing even more damage to the abused than the original harm, these ‘surgeons’ want to carry on ‘operating’. The whole presumptive conceit of CofE ‘lessons learned reviews’ is that the bishops are learning… Read more »
Thank you Martyn and Froghole. Professor Jay stated it clearly too…. “We recommend the creation of two separate charities, one for independent operational safeguarding and one for independent scrutiny of safeguarding. Further tinkering with existing structures will not be sufficient to make safeguarding in the Church consistent, accountable and trusted by those who use its services.” Well, we had Synod’s response……
Gareth
21 days ago
I’m not sure why Martyn Percy seems reluctant about disestablishment.
Most Anglican provinces in the world do just fine without it and it would allow for the CofE to make decisions about it’s future without being encumbered by the State or without the pressure to capitulate to secular culture.
I think this would be beneficial also for ensuring equality for other denominations and religious groups in the UK.
There’s no good reason why the CofE should continue to be privileged in law when about 1% of the population are CofE church goers.
I am not in favour of establishment, Gareth. My recent essays, articles and other publications make the case for disestablishment very clear.
Bermuda is the only other Anglican Church outside England that enjoys establishment rights. It is not a province, however.
A parliamentary bill to disestablish the CofE would be timely. Equally timely would be legislation that made the churches subject to the law of the land, and in areas such as employment, safeguarding etc, externally regulated by a fully independent body that ensured the CofE complied with regulatory frameworks that scrutinised other public bodies and held them accountable.
Disestablishment might end the “cuckoo in the nest” problem of evangelicals with no interest in being Anglican trying to take over the church to benefit from its resources and position, which has been the biggest source of internal conflict over the last few decades.
If the CofE is disestablished there is no incentive for evangelicals who don’t care for the threefold orders of ministry nor for episcopal polity to stay. They can go where their preferences lead them and join Vineyard and leave the CofE to Anglicans.
Conservative evangelicals would not be at all happy in the Vineyard, though some charismatics would. And many conevos, being Reformed, are very Anglican – they take the BCP more seriously than most middle of the road Anglicans do. The 39 Articles are a Reformed manifesto.
Are they though? They have been interpreted in a very unReformed way, notably by Newman’s Tract XC, but also by the well known commentary by Bicknell which was once a set text book in theological colleges.
It seems weird to see evangelicals associated with a positive attitude toward establishment. Many of my evangelical friends are far more at home with the concept of a gathered church, in which baptism is for believers and their children, and the focus is on equipping the saints for a wider work of ministry in the community.
Calling people cuckoos isn’t great. I wholeheartedly agree with the theology of BCP and the 39 Articles. When my grandma shut her eyes to never wake up again, her well prayed over copy of BCP was by her chair. My heroes include John Wycliffe, Thomas Cranmer, John Hooper, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, Charles Simeon, John Wesley, George Whitefield, William Wilberforce, J.C. Ryle, and both Henry Venns. I read their writings and I see myself as heir to their theology. My mentors were thoroughly Anglican. I am an evangelical. Am I an illegitimate intruder in my church? 70% of ordinands are… Read more »
No doubt there are Anglican “prayerbook” evangelicals around, but they’re outnumbered by those who merely consider the CofE the “best boat to fish from” and it is them who I would consider cuckoos. And I’m not suggesting ejection, only surmising that without the advantages of establishment the CofE boat won’t look so appealing.
Query whether disestablishment would make much difference if the Church retains its capital, which is presumably what makes the Church of England ‘the most convenient boat from which to fish’ (to paraphrase John Stott). Previous disestablishments (for Ireland and Wales) were accompanied by concurrent disendowments. The Church of Ireland was comprehensively disendowed in order to return to the Irish people property which – so the argument went – had been taken from them by the spiritual emissaries of the Ascendancy (but it was also really to help to buy social peace and to create a rural middle class which would… Read more »
In what way? By sending defence/weapons to Israel (depending on your bias – does anybody know exactly what is involved?). By some vote at the UN? By not standing up and ranting like the SNP? I seriously do not know what you are going on about.
I do appreciate 99% of your erudite comments. But your last few words make me wonder how reliable you are! What exactly has Starmer, Lammy etc. done wrong? Apart from calling for a ceasefire since Dec 2023?
I had referred on a previous thread to the ICJ order of 26 January 2024: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf The UK has an obligation under Common Art. 1 of the Geneva Conventions 1949 to ‘respect and ensure respect’ for international humanitarian law (IHL). Not only must the UK not violate IHL itself, but it must not encourage, aid or assist in its violation by others, and this has also been interpreted as imposing a positive duty on states to do everything in their power to prevent or bring an end to violations of IHL by other states (see, for example, para. 164 here:… Read more »
Thanks for your usual and detailed erudite response. So it is arms you were specifically referring to. I simply don’t know whether they were used to defend (remember the volley of missiles from Iran, I think, which were successfully shot down) or attack, nor how the F-35 was deployed. I agree that if an F-35 was maintained with British parts and used to bomb, I would feel – difficult to find a strong enough word. Difficult to find a strong enough word to describe what Hamas did and continue to do. I have some feeling it is all done in… Read more »
I am not saying that the government always tells all the truth on all matters. I think it is better to characterise government statements as being ‘not lying’.
‘Paraphrase’? – or ‘Misrepresent’? It has been claimed: ‘Stott was a convinced Anglican. He could never have remained in the denomination of his childhood simply by default. His justifications extended beyond the typical “Bash” camper argument that the Church of England represented “the best boat to fish from” for reaching the country. He was convinced that the denomination’s Reformed roots not only gave space for Evangelicals to remain within it but also mandated their presence, despite the meager numbers of clergy in postwar England. Many cradle anglican evangelicals like me might take offence at being labelled ‘cuckoos’, if we weren’t so peaceable and self-confident in… Read more »
There are a number of Church of England evangelicals who regularly contribute here. Perhaps you should ask them what it is they value about being Anglican, instead of making assumptions.
What exactly are the advantages of establishment? It serves much the same purpose now as in the sixteenth century, namely state control. And so there is precisely zero chance of the CofE being disestablished. If the next ABC walked out of the House of Lords and said ‘Let my people go!’ to Keir Starmer, it simply would not happen.
FearandTremolo
20 days ago
In the run up to the conclave, a nun was interviewed on the BBC and said that she didn’t mind who the next pope was, so long as he was a good friend of Jesus.
After everything, I think that’s what I want from the ABC. Someone who can set the tone and have that spiritual, prayerful authority. I don’t know which person that would be, but that’s what I’m praying for.
I saw this comment just after listening to Bart Ehrman’s recent YouTube cast intriguingly entitled ‘How many Jesuses are in the New Testament?’ The authors of the literature of the New Testament had hugely differing views about who and what Jesus is. To this day that ambiguity leaves ample scope for believers conveniently to recreate Jesus in their own image or to commandeer him for their own particular causes. I am a bit more wary than you about simply needing someone who is a friend of Jesus as the new Archbishop. I say this after many years of observing ‘friends’… Read more »
Homeless Anglican
20 days ago
I read Martyn’s piece with realism, and sadness. I think he has hit the nail on the head of the situation we are in, but I really want to address and discuss the way out of it. I am tired of reading how bad things are, rather than how good they are and how even better they could be! Is he writing a premature eulogy for the CofE? I feel like I am sitting at the bedside of someone in A&E looking not at a family member, but my total family, my church. Surely this is not palliative care? Surely… Read more »
I think honesty and realism are crucial. But to follow your analogy of the patient in hospital, it is hard to move forward if the injured/ill party is in denial. Furthermore, the patient appears to think that curing themselves and a path to being restored full health largely rests in their own hands. Under these circumstances, it is understandably worrying and also rather gloomy to be sitting with a patient who is clearly extremely unwell, yet in total denial, and making plans for their next round of new initiatives. We would all find this challenging if this was a real… Read more »
Thank you for your fulsome and considered answer. But all I have is a clearer diagnosis of how bad things are- none of which I disagree with. But the narrative has been almost totally about decline and death and not about revival and renewal. If my mother church is dying. I want to know what the response is. Where is the doctor, St Luke. Because I believe with all my heart and soul that she could and can live. Put bluntly, I want solutions rather than endless death knells. I know there is no quick fix, but I would love… Read more »
The problem, as I say, is the patient is in denial, so treatment is refused. We need honesty and realism. We can’t help with treatment until the patient accepts the diagnosis.
I agree. Most of us especially if we are ” cradle” Anglicans would find it very difficult to find an ecclesial home anywhere else. And there are good things happening. I just feel in my lifetime the traditions have moved apart and fragmented and sadly it is unclear what holds us together or quite where we are going.
I have also read that the Church of England Pension Scheme is the real glue that holds the C of E together.
Adrian Clarke
20 days ago
As far as WASGIJ is concerned , why let a metaphor get in the way of detailed analysis, which for some no matter how many times it is explained on this forum never seems to get through. It sounds something like connected incrementalism where the end result isn’t known and decisions are based on a connected set of shared values in the hope this achieves something like the Kingdom Jesus intended the church to be. The problem is where there are no shared values and each does what is right in its own eyes , muddling through becomes the norm.… Read more »
Anglican Priest
20 days ago
One of the disconnects in all this is that, non English anglicans saw in Canterbury a Communion, whilst inside the CofE, one saw Empire and all the backdraft of that. I worked with Rowan Williams, along with others, for several years. I suspect he saw all the trap-doors lurking, but his Catholic side believed in a Communion. (I don’t think Welby had any notion of ecclesiology). If the CofE is truly a protestant national church–and I don’t doubt it–it needs to frame itself identity in line with that, lock, stock and barrel. Does it have the courage? and would the… Read more »
This is spot on. But I cannot see bishops accepting the consequences of realising their church is theologically Protestant, and not Catholic. The Tudor fudge – a Protestant church, but with bishops retained – has bequeathed the CofE a legacy that no longer works. It’s run its course. Elected bishops with limited/renewable terms of office/tenure, but made accountable and under contract (the trajectory for employment of other clergy) might be the best way forward now, in effect mirroring area superintendent roles in other Protestant polities. I see little mileage in the idea that Petrine Episcopal lineage must be preserved at… Read more »
“The Tudor fudge…has bequeathed the CofE a legacy that no longer works.” The consequences of this fudge remind me of a letter which H. E. Manning wrote to Samuel Wilberforce following the Gorham judgment: “The manifest faithlessness of the living Church of England to its own recorded Faith, even more than its miserable contradictions is driving multitudes into mistrust, unbelief or secession. Fears and doubts which men do not dare speak before Bishops are freely spoken before us. And I do not believe that the Bishops of the Church of England are aware of the fearful unsettlement of faith…every year… Read more »
Anglicans outside the CofE have long adhered to the idea of See of Canterbury apostolic succession. There used to be colorful charts hanging in sacristies which traced the lineage. Getting used to the world of opinion inside the CofE itself (Lambeth 1920 is a long way off), one wonders if these were more prominent and more persuasive outwith England itself.Was this to do with lack of any association with establishmentarianism? Thus severing the class elite dimension referred to by Dr Percy? Was it simple geographical “distance from reality”? Or was it (in North America for example) the existence of major… Read more »
It is of course worth stepping inside Westminster Cathedral (RC) London, where the Archbishops of Canterbury are listed. But the list ends at William Wareham (d. 1532). Cranmer et al divorced themselves from Rome at the behest of Henry VIII when they concurred that the monarch was the Supreme Head of the Church. The list in Westminster Cathedral reflects this. There has been a vacancy in see since 1533. With Protestant theology (39 articles etc), no central authority to impose liturgy etc in the CofE, let alone the wider Communion, Anglicanism is a pan-Protestant federation of churches. There is no… Read more »
“It is of course worth stepping inside Westminster Cathedral (RC) London, where the Archbishops of Canterbury are listed. But the list ends at William Wareham (d. 1532).” I am well aware of this; you have written this already in your remarks. And your strong Protestant position, vis-a-vis the CofE, is very clear. It stands alongside my point that the situation inside England–where Westminster Cathedral (RC) stands–has its own particular character compared with the Provinces elsewhere. Those handy anglican lineage charts I speak of don’t track with the RC one. So, we are speaking of contestation, in the most general terms.… Read more »
I don’t want to get mired too deeply in this. Just trying to follow your logic. There is a Lutheran World Federation. It is a term of use. Are you claiming to (summarily, unilaterally) retire “Anglican Communion” as a term of use? On the one hand, The Church of England is to cease thinking of itself as some kind of Mother Ship (Empire enhanced). On the other, it is in a position to dismiss the use of “Communion” in favor of “Federation” — perhaps I am missing something? This, because an elite and negligent Bishop caste has put paid to… Read more »
For over 15 years I have been arguing that the Anglican Communion is really a very spread out archipelago of provinces that are in varying degrees of inter-relationship, and should not be seen as some vast continent. I have argued explicitly that global Anglicanism acts much more like the World Lutheran Federation. Anglicans would be far less inclined to be hoisted by their own petard if they adopted the reality and humility of a federation, rather than trying and constantly failing with their hubris of a Communion.
Thank you very much for this, as ever. I wonder whether the firm commitment to the apostolic succession outwith the British isles (but perhaps including Scotland after 1689) was attributable to a form of institutional ‘muscle memory’. Many current provinces – specifically those in the former empire – had been established churches. The general rule was that the Church of England would remain established until a significant degree of self-government was attained, but this did not always hold (for example, the Church remained established in Barbados until 1969), though in 1852 Gladstone declared that the purpose of the Colonial Bishops… Read more »
I don’t currently have time to go and check sources, but I rather suspect that there were plenty of members of the Church of England who were commited to the apostolic succession. Archbishop Laud, for example, and what we might call high church folk, including the likes of George Herbert and Nicholas Ferrar; those who wrote the preface to the ordinal in 1666 (was it John Cosin?); at least some of the non-Jurors (perhaps Thomas Ken?). This was an important strand I rather think, one which fed into the Scottish Church (where the succession was after all reestablished via the… Read more »
Thank you. I am not denying that, and I am grateful to you for mentioning it: all I was doing was responding to Anglican Priest’s useful reference to the special esteem with which the Canterbury connection is held within the TEC (or parts of it) and elsewhere: “Anglicans outside the CofE have long adhered to the idea of See of Canterbury apostolic succession. There used to be colorful charts hanging in sacristies which traced the lineage.” Apologies for not having made myself clear. Yes, attitudes in the 17th century were certainly inconsistent. Laud was undoubtedly wedded to the idea, but… Read more »
I agree in general with most of this from a sociological standpoint. I also think that TEC (once PECUSA) believed in an apostolic succession, as something like the key ingredient to being a Church qua Church. Hence Aberdeen and in time London consecrations. Absent that, Methodism stood ready to offer another model, as well as the New World churches of the continental reformation. Of course one can question this logic from outside, but the historical reality is the ‘loyalist’ churches would in time cease to be that, but not cease to wish to be consecrated Bishops in apostolic succession. I… Read more »
…hmmm. Seabudy was consecrated by SEC bishops in 1784. The CofE only very reluctantly consented to another two American bishops being by consecrated by the CofEafter that date as they were afraid of the possible emergence of Jacobite pro-French Anglicans that were anti-monarchists being established in America. Let us not forget that as late as 1840, CofE bishops treated visiting American Anglican clergy as laypeople, and refused to recognise their orders…as they had not taken an oath to the crown. We must also remember that, irrespective of which Anglicans believe in apostolic succession, Rome doesn’t buy this, and declared Anglican… Read more »
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York in their learned reply to Pope Leo XIII, Saepius offico, argue strongly that they and their fellow bishops and clergy are consecrated and ordained in apostolic succession. https://www.anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf
They do! But Rome neither agrees with that nor recognises Anglican ordinations. Those crossing the Tiber will need to be ordained if they want to serve as clergy in the RC church. It frankly does not matter a jot what the Archbishops of York and Canterbury argued in Saepius office or think today. Rome doesn’t buy into the idea of parity between the orders. This is hardly a debate between two equal parties. The RC’s outnumber Anglicans, globally, by almost 30:1. RC’s have single code of canon law for the whole world, and a universal canon of authorised liturgy. Anglicans… Read more »
Just curious, would you see the liturgical calendar of protestant anglicanism needing serious clarification when it honors pre-reformation saints? Don’t these belong to Rome, as per your understanding?
I am not speaking of ‘myths of entitlement’ (and I’m not sure anyone else is either, as baldly stated) but how the severe break you want to underscore pertains to other matters, like saints.
John Jewel and Anglican apologists were not interested in severing ties to the ancient church, but of robustly claiming them.
The Anglican calendar of saints appropriates pre and post Reformation RCs, and includes the Wesleys. A denomination that believes it is a Protestant-Catholic via media and can magpie-like appropriate what it likes is probably acting in an entitled way. Anglican ordinations have recently evolved to underline this: anointing hands, prostration, etc. Such appropriations had no part in Anglicanism 100 years ago.
John Jewel had views. They are interesting, But they are not reflected in the 39 articles of faith. Anglicans are generally and officially required to subscribe to the latter, not the former. That’s just a fact.
Who might be interested in joining you in this presentation of the CofE, practically speaking? I mentioned the Ryle type evangelical. I just don’t see where this project goes. Disestablishment is disestablishment. It would simply make the CofE like every other anglican entity, and they have not linked apostolic succession to it.
You have got me intrigued. On a practical question. If you push out the ‘no apostolic succession, area superintendent, protestant’ boat who might you think would join you in it? I was thinking R.C. Ryle might be a passenger. Though a Bishop himself, he believed in a *kind* of apostolic succession focused on apostolical faith. I guess he’d have to nuance further. Not catholics, probably few evangelicals — if you would want them — so who? I understand “the Catholic Church disputes anglican orders.” That has been true for some time now. Is it safeguarding and the severe decline in… Read more »
No. Have bishops by all means. Elect them and give them a limited tenure. Make them accountable and expendable. As other clergy are. Bishops are not monarchs. Move them on after 5-7 years. In Protestantism, the role is executive, not ontological. Anglican episcopacy has been moving that way for decades. Own it.
Thanks for posting this. Good to have the historical record in front of us.
The RCC knows that Lutheran and Reformed Bodies had a different account of their identity than Anglicans did.
Luther claimed the Papacy to be in Babylonian Exile. Because of this different ‘founding story’ it stood to reason that if Rome corrected its errors, Lutheranism would have to take serious account of this. Hence the return of many prominent Lutherans to the RCC of late.
The situation for Anglicans takes a different form. Because of the particular history involved. Hence the utility of this document.
The President of the World Wide Mothers Union, Canadian Kathleen Snow, was at the inauguration of the new Leo XIV. (see link). Maybe the current Anglican Bishops can move the conversation out the doldrums of church history. Additional fun fact, Leo XIV was born in 1955, and so is a ‘boomer pope.’. Other boomers may recall the old Deep Purple song, Maybe I’m a Leo?
I confess to being puzzled by this. Previously you took us inside Westminster Cathedral to note that there are no Archbishops of Canterbury listed after the mid 1500s. Well, yes. I’m not sure what else one would expect! Equally, you could say, that is because they lost the See. The Ecclesia Anglicana purported to continue it on their terms. One doesn’t have to agree with this to understand it. As one inside the CofE, it appears you want to lift this into another register and declare it definitive. Even RC’s would not understand an Anglican doing this. They would need… Read more »
The Protestant Reformation of the CofE was a constant set of actions over 500 years. Think of 1688. The Dutch invaded England (English history erroneously calls it a Revolution). The Dutch forces invaded, captured Exeter, and marched on London. James II, a Catholic, fled. Why did the Dutch invade? Because they were Protestant, feared their Spanish and French Catholic neighbours, and so needed the British to be solidly Protestant allies. So they sent William III – a true Protestant – to be King. Protestant ascendancy continued against Ireland and Scotland in the 18th century. The CofE consented to consecrating a… Read more »
Visit Brixham, Devon on 5 November and Protestants celebrating ‘the Glorious Revolution’ in King Billy shirts will likely have Ballymena or West Glasgow accents. The English, if they’re bothered at all, look on in detached bemusement.
And so to the CofE. The BCP, like the 39 Articles, is still invoked by a few, often to shore up a weak argument, but the battleground has moved on.
The CofE, as a lived reality, might be better described today as Evangelical – mostly.
Allan, Oops, you mention West Glasgow accents….. hm..hm..hm… I would have thought Glaswegians from the West side would be more sensible, sane and sound, rather than be caught up with that. ( I am a Glaswegian, born in the west side and now resident down south.)
English bishops were unable to consecrate Seabury because the peace treaty with the Americans had not yet been concluded. They were afraid that consecrating the loyalist Seabury would be seen as an unfriendly act. After the peace had been signed the way was clear to consecrate three Americans, White, Provoost, and Madison, so that there was the minimum three bishops to continue the English succession. I would be interested to see evidence of concern that the Loyalists were ever considered ‘pro-French’. in the 1840s, visiting Americans were not considered laymen. They were not able to preach because they had not… Read more »
“English bishops were unable to consecrate Seabury because the peace treaty with the Americans had not yet been concluded.” Many thanks, but the Peace of Paris (under which the UK gave de jure recognition to the US) was signed on 3 September 1783. Seabury’s consecration occurred on 14 November 1784 and he was in Britain for the whole of that time. As many will know, William White, rector of Christ Church w. St Peter’s Philadelphia had published an anonymous tract in 1782 proposing a scheme for a national Episcopal Church. Since there were no bishops, White proposed – as a… Read more »
Thank you, Froghole, for that clarification — I’m away from my sources at the moment. All of which goes to show, of course, the general (and un-Protestant) determination to conserve the integrity of the historic episcopal succession.
Just a personal anecdote. When I was installed as chaplain at Fontainebleau in the CofE Diocese in Europe, the taking of an oath was part of the service. (After consultation with legal counsel) as an American, I cannot take an oath to a foreign power or I’d have to surrender my passport. So, it was dispensed with, graciously. One supposes that oaths are required when they serve the purpose at hand, at the time.
Thanks for adding one important issue – state enforcement – to the long list of factors which may be leading to the Church of England’s current woes.
Ever since Constantine the Church has been able to use Imperial or State power to enforce the population’s compliance with Church teaching and values. Sometime this was with great ruthlessness, at other times a more subtle application of soft power.
But such levers of power are being disconnected, or no longer work.
Sadly in England being sui generis is often regarded as a badge of honour, As a nation we are destined never to learn how to do things better by looking abroad.
Reply to Martyn Percy I’m unconvinced by Martyn Percy’s characterisation of the Church of England as Protestant, and his view that ‘The Protestant Reformation of the C of E was a constant set of actions over 500 years.’ This surely isn’t the case. However much it’s possible to argue that ‘Protestantism’ is inherent in the English character, and to see (for instance) Brexit as a renewal of this nation’s C16th rejection of external authority, Dr Percy just doesn’t make sufficient allowance for the impact of the Oxford movement and the subsequent catholic revival of the C19th, or indeed of continuing… Read more »
Thanks, John. I think the issue rests on how much weight to place on self-designation. It’s true that there are some in the CofE and elsewhere in the Anglicansphere who don’t like to regard themselves as ‘Catholic’ and prefer ‘Protestant’. And vice-versa. But self-designations can’t easily be said to carry significant weight externally. There are High Church Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians. What are we to make of these Protestant expressions of Christian faith and their Catholic accents? Do Roman Catholics – officially, doctrinally and ordinarily – actually regard Anglicans as Protestants, or, like themselves, as Catholic? It is clearly the… Read more »
It’s probably worth adding that 20th century religious studies and academics were given to drawing the ‘family tree’ of Christianity (the trunk of the tree only divides at the Great Schism between Rome and Constantinople). The scholars and their family trees ascribe a major branch to Catholicism and its related branches such as Melkites and other Eastern Rite Roman Catholics. Another goes to the Orthodox. Protestantism is another major branch, albeit later than the Great Schism. The Protestant sub-branches include Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostalism (later) etc. I honestly cannot think of any – any – scholar or any ‘family tree’ map… Read more »
Thank you, Martyn, for your lengthy and firm response to my critique of your view that the C of E is institutionally (even irredeemably?) Protestant. As in all our previous discussions – not least those at Cuddesdon where you generously hosted the work of the Bloxham Project in support of chaplaincy in schools – you display an erudition and range I couldn’t match! However – I still think you overstate your case. Incidentally, I also take your point about clergy who call themselves ‘Father’ (touche!), though for my part I concluded it was the least bad of all the options…… Read more »
Thank you, John, for such a gracious response. I too have fond memories of our conversations at Cuddesdon. I broadly agree with much of what you say above. Yes, our liturgy derived from older Catholic rites. And there are some who invest theologically in that. I am more inclined to myself, as do know. But… the organisational ecclesial polity has no universal authority, catechism, canon law etc. And the ‘family trees’ I alluded to have Anglicanism clearly branching off at the Reformation from Roman Catholicism. It is worth noting, incidentally, that of the Reformation churches, Anglicanism spawned more splits –… Read more »
I am most grateful to Dr Percy for referencing the new book ‘Superpower Britain’ in his second essay. The book aims to address how the hubris of wartime planners turned into the nemesis of postwar policymakers and did so within the very short time span of 1943/44 to 1947/49. However, it also takes aim at the voluminous literature of ‘declinism’, which kicked off with Andrew Shonfield’s seminal ‘British Economic Policy Since the War’ (1958), which had a transformative impact upon Whitehall, and led to the self-fulfilling belief that there was nothing which the UK could do well, or perhaps at… Read more »
Thank you, Froghole. As ever, I sincerely appreciate your insights for their breadth and depth. These essays are part of the wider agenda and approach that I’ve been cultivating within the field of critical grounded ecclesiology over the past few decades. It is becoming an urgent task as academics seek to understand the deeper reasons for what looks like irreversible church decline in the western world. Traditional approaches to secularisation (stemming from 1960s sociology) are no longer adequate. At the same time, trying to develop an account for decline through theological debates (e.g., liberal vs conservative etc) is just as… Read more »
Very many thanks indeed for your kind remarks (though I fear any ecclesiology of mine is of a featherweight variety, if that). I should add that I very much appreciate your essays, but what – for me – is especially useful about them is that they put into ever starker relief how decreasingly useful the Church of England has become as a church. It is not merely the attenuation of pastoral provision at the local level, but the manner in which it has, by degrees, slipped into a condition of almost complete stasis – a condition amplified by the partisanship… Read more »
Thank you, Froghole. Agreed. And I should have added in response to ‘Homeless Anglican’ below that the patient is in denial over the seriousness of their condition, yet still regards themselves as a fit and healthy physician to the soul of the nation, and cannot err in practice. So on CofE safeguarding, despite a long and consistent record of botched procedures and methods, with policies and practices causing even more damage to the abused than the original harm, these ‘surgeons’ want to carry on ‘operating’. The whole presumptive conceit of CofE ‘lessons learned reviews’ is that the bishops are learning… Read more »
Thank you Martyn and Froghole. Professor Jay stated it clearly too…. “We recommend the creation of two separate charities, one for independent operational safeguarding and one for independent scrutiny of safeguarding. Further tinkering with existing structures will not be sufficient to make safeguarding in the Church consistent, accountable and trusted by those who use its services.” Well, we had Synod’s response……
I’m not sure why Martyn Percy seems reluctant about disestablishment.
Most Anglican provinces in the world do just fine without it and it would allow for the CofE to make decisions about it’s future without being encumbered by the State or without the pressure to capitulate to secular culture.
I think this would be beneficial also for ensuring equality for other denominations and religious groups in the UK.
There’s no good reason why the CofE should continue to be privileged in law when about 1% of the population are CofE church goers.
I am not in favour of establishment, Gareth. My recent essays, articles and other publications make the case for disestablishment very clear.
Bermuda is the only other Anglican Church outside England that enjoys establishment rights. It is not a province, however.
A parliamentary bill to disestablish the CofE would be timely. Equally timely would be legislation that made the churches subject to the law of the land, and in areas such as employment, safeguarding etc, externally regulated by a fully independent body that ensured the CofE complied with regulatory frameworks that scrutinised other public bodies and held them accountable.
Would this apply just to the C of E? Or all churches, synagogues and mosques?
There are no reasons for faith-based public organisations to be in breach of normal external professional independent regulatory scrutiny.
Disestablishment might end the “cuckoo in the nest” problem of evangelicals with no interest in being Anglican trying to take over the church to benefit from its resources and position, which has been the biggest source of internal conflict over the last few decades.
Or – it will allow the church to sit down and come to a negotiated split which would allow both parties to move in the direction they desire.
If the CofE is disestablished there is no incentive for evangelicals who don’t care for the threefold orders of ministry nor for episcopal polity to stay. They can go where their preferences lead them and join Vineyard and leave the CofE to Anglicans.
Conservative evangelicals would not be at all happy in the Vineyard, though some charismatics would. And many conevos, being Reformed, are very Anglican – they take the BCP more seriously than most middle of the road Anglicans do. The 39 Articles are a Reformed manifesto.
Are they though? They have been interpreted in a very unReformed way, notably by Newman’s Tract XC, but also by the well known commentary by Bicknell which was once a set text book in theological colleges.
It seems weird to see evangelicals associated with a positive attitude toward establishment. Many of my evangelical friends are far more at home with the concept of a gathered church, in which baptism is for believers and their children, and the focus is on equipping the saints for a wider work of ministry in the community.
Calling people cuckoos isn’t great. I wholeheartedly agree with the theology of BCP and the 39 Articles. When my grandma shut her eyes to never wake up again, her well prayed over copy of BCP was by her chair. My heroes include John Wycliffe, Thomas Cranmer, John Hooper, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, Charles Simeon, John Wesley, George Whitefield, William Wilberforce, J.C. Ryle, and both Henry Venns. I read their writings and I see myself as heir to their theology. My mentors were thoroughly Anglican. I am an evangelical. Am I an illegitimate intruder in my church? 70% of ordinands are… Read more »
No doubt there are Anglican “prayerbook” evangelicals around, but they’re outnumbered by those who merely consider the CofE the “best boat to fish from” and it is them who I would consider cuckoos. And I’m not suggesting ejection, only surmising that without the advantages of establishment the CofE boat won’t look so appealing.
Query whether disestablishment would make much difference if the Church retains its capital, which is presumably what makes the Church of England ‘the most convenient boat from which to fish’ (to paraphrase John Stott). Previous disestablishments (for Ireland and Wales) were accompanied by concurrent disendowments. The Church of Ireland was comprehensively disendowed in order to return to the Irish people property which – so the argument went – had been taken from them by the spiritual emissaries of the Ascendancy (but it was also really to help to buy social peace and to create a rural middle class which would… Read more »
Sorry, *allegedly* trashing international humanitarian law, of course…
In what way? By sending defence/weapons to Israel (depending on your bias – does anybody know exactly what is involved?). By some vote at the UN? By not standing up and ranting like the SNP? I seriously do not know what you are going on about.
I do appreciate 99% of your erudite comments. But your last few words make me wonder how reliable you are! What exactly has Starmer, Lammy etc. done wrong? Apart from calling for a ceasefire since Dec 2023?
I had referred on a previous thread to the ICJ order of 26 January 2024: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf The UK has an obligation under Common Art. 1 of the Geneva Conventions 1949 to ‘respect and ensure respect’ for international humanitarian law (IHL). Not only must the UK not violate IHL itself, but it must not encourage, aid or assist in its violation by others, and this has also been interpreted as imposing a positive duty on states to do everything in their power to prevent or bring an end to violations of IHL by other states (see, for example, para. 164 here:… Read more »
Thanks for your usual and detailed erudite response. So it is arms you were specifically referring to. I simply don’t know whether they were used to defend (remember the volley of missiles from Iran, I think, which were successfully shot down) or attack, nor how the F-35 was deployed. I agree that if an F-35 was maintained with British parts and used to bomb, I would feel – difficult to find a strong enough word. Difficult to find a strong enough word to describe what Hamas did and continue to do. I have some feeling it is all done in… Read more »
Whilst trying to avoid continuing this debate, which will go on for ever, I read:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-statement-on-uk-policy-on-arms-export-licenses-to-israel
where Lammy makes clear the government’s approach and the suspension of 30 licenses.
It specifically mentions the F-35.
There is also a briefing:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9964/
and a written answer
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-09-02/3745
I am not saying that the government always tells all the truth on all matters. I think it is better to characterise government statements as being ‘not lying’.
Let me try to put this debate to bed and present some facts most of which I was unaware in detail. There was a debate last night.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-06-02/debates/FB92D222-847B-432A-AE59-164433E63AC9/ArmsAndMilitaryCargoExportControlsIsrael
‘Paraphrase’? – or ‘Misrepresent’? It has been claimed: ‘Stott was a convinced Anglican. He could never have remained in the denomination of his childhood simply by default. His justifications extended beyond the typical “Bash” camper argument that the Church of England represented “the best boat to fish from” for reaching the country. He was convinced that the denomination’s Reformed roots not only gave space for Evangelicals to remain within it but also mandated their presence, despite the meager numbers of clergy in postwar England. Many cradle anglican evangelicals like me might take offence at being labelled ‘cuckoos’, if we weren’t so peaceable and self-confident in… Read more »
There are a number of Church of England evangelicals who regularly contribute here. Perhaps you should ask them what it is they value about being Anglican, instead of making assumptions.
What exactly are the advantages of establishment? It serves much the same purpose now as in the sixteenth century, namely state control. And so there is precisely zero chance of the CofE being disestablished. If the next ABC walked out of the House of Lords and said ‘Let my people go!’ to Keir Starmer, it simply would not happen.
In the run up to the conclave, a nun was interviewed on the BBC and said that she didn’t mind who the next pope was, so long as he was a good friend of Jesus.
After everything, I think that’s what I want from the ABC. Someone who can set the tone and have that spiritual, prayerful authority. I don’t know which person that would be, but that’s what I’m praying for.
I saw this comment just after listening to Bart Ehrman’s recent YouTube cast intriguingly entitled ‘How many Jesuses are in the New Testament?’ The authors of the literature of the New Testament had hugely differing views about who and what Jesus is. To this day that ambiguity leaves ample scope for believers conveniently to recreate Jesus in their own image or to commandeer him for their own particular causes. I am a bit more wary than you about simply needing someone who is a friend of Jesus as the new Archbishop. I say this after many years of observing ‘friends’… Read more »
I read Martyn’s piece with realism, and sadness. I think he has hit the nail on the head of the situation we are in, but I really want to address and discuss the way out of it. I am tired of reading how bad things are, rather than how good they are and how even better they could be! Is he writing a premature eulogy for the CofE? I feel like I am sitting at the bedside of someone in A&E looking not at a family member, but my total family, my church. Surely this is not palliative care? Surely… Read more »
I think honesty and realism are crucial. But to follow your analogy of the patient in hospital, it is hard to move forward if the injured/ill party is in denial. Furthermore, the patient appears to think that curing themselves and a path to being restored full health largely rests in their own hands. Under these circumstances, it is understandably worrying and also rather gloomy to be sitting with a patient who is clearly extremely unwell, yet in total denial, and making plans for their next round of new initiatives. We would all find this challenging if this was a real… Read more »
Thank you for your fulsome and considered answer. But all I have is a clearer diagnosis of how bad things are- none of which I disagree with. But the narrative has been almost totally about decline and death and not about revival and renewal. If my mother church is dying. I want to know what the response is. Where is the doctor, St Luke. Because I believe with all my heart and soul that she could and can live. Put bluntly, I want solutions rather than endless death knells. I know there is no quick fix, but I would love… Read more »
The problem, as I say, is the patient is in denial, so treatment is refused. We need honesty and realism. We can’t help with treatment until the patient accepts the diagnosis.
I agree. Most of us especially if we are ” cradle” Anglicans would find it very difficult to find an ecclesial home anywhere else. And there are good things happening. I just feel in my lifetime the traditions have moved apart and fragmented and sadly it is unclear what holds us together or quite where we are going.
It used to be said that what held the C of E together was Wippells. Alas, Wippells is no longer with us – does that explain our decline?
I have also read that the Church of England Pension Scheme is the real glue that holds the C of E together.
As far as WASGIJ is concerned , why let a metaphor get in the way of detailed analysis, which for some no matter how many times it is explained on this forum never seems to get through. It sounds something like connected incrementalism where the end result isn’t known and decisions are based on a connected set of shared values in the hope this achieves something like the Kingdom Jesus intended the church to be. The problem is where there are no shared values and each does what is right in its own eyes , muddling through becomes the norm.… Read more »
One of the disconnects in all this is that, non English anglicans saw in Canterbury a Communion, whilst inside the CofE, one saw Empire and all the backdraft of that. I worked with Rowan Williams, along with others, for several years. I suspect he saw all the trap-doors lurking, but his Catholic side believed in a Communion. (I don’t think Welby had any notion of ecclesiology). If the CofE is truly a protestant national church–and I don’t doubt it–it needs to frame itself identity in line with that, lock, stock and barrel. Does it have the courage? and would the… Read more »
This is spot on. But I cannot see bishops accepting the consequences of realising their church is theologically Protestant, and not Catholic. The Tudor fudge – a Protestant church, but with bishops retained – has bequeathed the CofE a legacy that no longer works. It’s run its course. Elected bishops with limited/renewable terms of office/tenure, but made accountable and under contract (the trajectory for employment of other clergy) might be the best way forward now, in effect mirroring area superintendent roles in other Protestant polities. I see little mileage in the idea that Petrine Episcopal lineage must be preserved at… Read more »
“The Tudor fudge…has bequeathed the CofE a legacy that no longer works.” The consequences of this fudge remind me of a letter which H. E. Manning wrote to Samuel Wilberforce following the Gorham judgment: “The manifest faithlessness of the living Church of England to its own recorded Faith, even more than its miserable contradictions is driving multitudes into mistrust, unbelief or secession. Fears and doubts which men do not dare speak before Bishops are freely spoken before us. And I do not believe that the Bishops of the Church of England are aware of the fearful unsettlement of faith…every year… Read more »
Anglicans outside the CofE have long adhered to the idea of See of Canterbury apostolic succession. There used to be colorful charts hanging in sacristies which traced the lineage. Getting used to the world of opinion inside the CofE itself (Lambeth 1920 is a long way off), one wonders if these were more prominent and more persuasive outwith England itself.Was this to do with lack of any association with establishmentarianism? Thus severing the class elite dimension referred to by Dr Percy? Was it simple geographical “distance from reality”? Or was it (in North America for example) the existence of major… Read more »
It is of course worth stepping inside Westminster Cathedral (RC) London, where the Archbishops of Canterbury are listed. But the list ends at William Wareham (d. 1532). Cranmer et al divorced themselves from Rome at the behest of Henry VIII when they concurred that the monarch was the Supreme Head of the Church. The list in Westminster Cathedral reflects this. There has been a vacancy in see since 1533. With Protestant theology (39 articles etc), no central authority to impose liturgy etc in the CofE, let alone the wider Communion, Anglicanism is a pan-Protestant federation of churches. There is no… Read more »
“It is of course worth stepping inside Westminster Cathedral (RC) London, where the Archbishops of Canterbury are listed. But the list ends at William Wareham (d. 1532).” I am well aware of this; you have written this already in your remarks. And your strong Protestant position, vis-a-vis the CofE, is very clear. It stands alongside my point that the situation inside England–where Westminster Cathedral (RC) stands–has its own particular character compared with the Provinces elsewhere. Those handy anglican lineage charts I speak of don’t track with the RC one. So, we are speaking of contestation, in the most general terms.… Read more »
I don’t want to get mired too deeply in this. Just trying to follow your logic. There is a Lutheran World Federation. It is a term of use. Are you claiming to (summarily, unilaterally) retire “Anglican Communion” as a term of use? On the one hand, The Church of England is to cease thinking of itself as some kind of Mother Ship (Empire enhanced). On the other, it is in a position to dismiss the use of “Communion” in favor of “Federation” — perhaps I am missing something? This, because an elite and negligent Bishop caste has put paid to… Read more »
For over 15 years I have been arguing that the Anglican Communion is really a very spread out archipelago of provinces that are in varying degrees of inter-relationship, and should not be seen as some vast continent. I have argued explicitly that global Anglicanism acts much more like the World Lutheran Federation. Anglicans would be far less inclined to be hoisted by their own petard if they adopted the reality and humility of a federation, rather than trying and constantly failing with their hubris of a Communion.
Thank you very much for this, as ever. I wonder whether the firm commitment to the apostolic succession outwith the British isles (but perhaps including Scotland after 1689) was attributable to a form of institutional ‘muscle memory’. Many current provinces – specifically those in the former empire – had been established churches. The general rule was that the Church of England would remain established until a significant degree of self-government was attained, but this did not always hold (for example, the Church remained established in Barbados until 1969), though in 1852 Gladstone declared that the purpose of the Colonial Bishops… Read more »
I don’t currently have time to go and check sources, but I rather suspect that there were plenty of members of the Church of England who were commited to the apostolic succession. Archbishop Laud, for example, and what we might call high church folk, including the likes of George Herbert and Nicholas Ferrar; those who wrote the preface to the ordinal in 1666 (was it John Cosin?); at least some of the non-Jurors (perhaps Thomas Ken?). This was an important strand I rather think, one which fed into the Scottish Church (where the succession was after all reestablished via the… Read more »
And in its way, thence to the Episcopal Church during the War of Independence.
Thank you. I am not denying that, and I am grateful to you for mentioning it: all I was doing was responding to Anglican Priest’s useful reference to the special esteem with which the Canterbury connection is held within the TEC (or parts of it) and elsewhere: “Anglicans outside the CofE have long adhered to the idea of See of Canterbury apostolic succession. There used to be colorful charts hanging in sacristies which traced the lineage.” Apologies for not having made myself clear. Yes, attitudes in the 17th century were certainly inconsistent. Laud was undoubtedly wedded to the idea, but… Read more »
I agree in general with most of this from a sociological standpoint. I also think that TEC (once PECUSA) believed in an apostolic succession, as something like the key ingredient to being a Church qua Church. Hence Aberdeen and in time London consecrations. Absent that, Methodism stood ready to offer another model, as well as the New World churches of the continental reformation. Of course one can question this logic from outside, but the historical reality is the ‘loyalist’ churches would in time cease to be that, but not cease to wish to be consecrated Bishops in apostolic succession. I… Read more »
…hmmm. Seabudy was consecrated by SEC bishops in 1784. The CofE only very reluctantly consented to another two American bishops being by consecrated by the CofEafter that date as they were afraid of the possible emergence of Jacobite pro-French Anglicans that were anti-monarchists being established in America. Let us not forget that as late as 1840, CofE bishops treated visiting American Anglican clergy as laypeople, and refused to recognise their orders…as they had not taken an oath to the crown. We must also remember that, irrespective of which Anglicans believe in apostolic succession, Rome doesn’t buy this, and declared Anglican… Read more »
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York in their learned reply to Pope Leo XIII, Saepius offico, argue strongly that they and their fellow bishops and clergy are consecrated and ordained in apostolic succession. https://www.anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf
They do! But Rome neither agrees with that nor recognises Anglican ordinations. Those crossing the Tiber will need to be ordained if they want to serve as clergy in the RC church. It frankly does not matter a jot what the Archbishops of York and Canterbury argued in Saepius office or think today. Rome doesn’t buy into the idea of parity between the orders. This is hardly a debate between two equal parties. The RC’s outnumber Anglicans, globally, by almost 30:1. RC’s have single code of canon law for the whole world, and a universal canon of authorised liturgy. Anglicans… Read more »
Just curious, would you see the liturgical calendar of protestant anglicanism needing serious clarification when it honors pre-reformation saints? Don’t these belong to Rome, as per your understanding?
I am not speaking of ‘myths of entitlement’ (and I’m not sure anyone else is either, as baldly stated) but how the severe break you want to underscore pertains to other matters, like saints.
John Jewel and Anglican apologists were not interested in severing ties to the ancient church, but of robustly claiming them.
Is that likewise a ‘myth of entitlement’?
The Anglican calendar of saints appropriates pre and post Reformation RCs, and includes the Wesleys. A denomination that believes it is a Protestant-Catholic via media and can magpie-like appropriate what it likes is probably acting in an entitled way. Anglican ordinations have recently evolved to underline this: anointing hands, prostration, etc. Such appropriations had no part in Anglicanism 100 years ago.
John Jewel had views. They are interesting, But they are not reflected in the 39 articles of faith. Anglicans are generally and officially required to subscribe to the latter, not the former. That’s just a fact.
Thank you. Push the good boat MHS Percy out to sea!
I am grateful for learning your views and wish you every blessing.
You are to be credited for defining your version of the CofE very clearly.
Who might be interested in joining you in this presentation of the CofE, practically speaking? I mentioned the Ryle type evangelical. I just don’t see where this project goes. Disestablishment is disestablishment. It would simply make the CofE like every other anglican entity, and they have not linked apostolic succession to it.
You have got me intrigued. On a practical question. If you push out the ‘no apostolic succession, area superintendent, protestant’ boat who might you think would join you in it? I was thinking R.C. Ryle might be a passenger. Though a Bishop himself, he believed in a *kind* of apostolic succession focused on apostolical faith. I guess he’d have to nuance further. Not catholics, probably few evangelicals — if you would want them — so who? I understand “the Catholic Church disputes anglican orders.” That has been true for some time now. Is it safeguarding and the severe decline in… Read more »
No. Have bishops by all means. Elect them and give them a limited tenure. Make them accountable and expendable. As other clergy are. Bishops are not monarchs. Move them on after 5-7 years. In Protestantism, the role is executive, not ontological. Anglican episcopacy has been moving that way for decades. Own it.
.
“Own it.”
If so you desire for yourself.
I remain curious about who will constitute this new boat and voyage.
Thanks for posting this. Good to have the historical record in front of us.
The RCC knows that Lutheran and Reformed Bodies had a different account of their identity than Anglicans did.
Luther claimed the Papacy to be in Babylonian Exile. Because of this different ‘founding story’ it stood to reason that if Rome corrected its errors, Lutheranism would have to take serious account of this. Hence the return of many prominent Lutherans to the RCC of late.
The situation for Anglicans takes a different form. Because of the particular history involved. Hence the utility of this document.
The President of the World Wide Mothers Union, Canadian Kathleen Snow, was at the inauguration of the new Leo XIV. (see link). Maybe the current Anglican Bishops can move the conversation out the doldrums of church history. Additional fun fact, Leo XIV was born in 1955, and so is a ‘boomer pope.’. Other boomers may recall the old Deep Purple song, Maybe I’m a Leo?
https://www.mothersunion.org/news/mothers-union-reflects-on-inauguration-pope-leo-xiv
I confess to being puzzled by this. Previously you took us inside Westminster Cathedral to note that there are no Archbishops of Canterbury listed after the mid 1500s. Well, yes. I’m not sure what else one would expect! Equally, you could say, that is because they lost the See. The Ecclesia Anglicana purported to continue it on their terms. One doesn’t have to agree with this to understand it. As one inside the CofE, it appears you want to lift this into another register and declare it definitive. Even RC’s would not understand an Anglican doing this. They would need… Read more »
The Protestant Reformation of the CofE was a constant set of actions over 500 years. Think of 1688. The Dutch invaded England (English history erroneously calls it a Revolution). The Dutch forces invaded, captured Exeter, and marched on London. James II, a Catholic, fled. Why did the Dutch invade? Because they were Protestant, feared their Spanish and French Catholic neighbours, and so needed the British to be solidly Protestant allies. So they sent William III – a true Protestant – to be King. Protestant ascendancy continued against Ireland and Scotland in the 18th century. The CofE consented to consecrating a… Read more »
Visit Brixham, Devon on 5 November and Protestants celebrating ‘the Glorious Revolution’ in King Billy shirts will likely have Ballymena or West Glasgow accents. The English, if they’re bothered at all, look on in detached bemusement.
And so to the CofE. The BCP, like the 39 Articles, is still invoked by a few, often to shore up a weak argument, but the battleground has moved on.
The CofE, as a lived reality, might be better described today as Evangelical – mostly.
Allan, Oops, you mention West Glasgow accents….. hm..hm..hm… I would have thought Glaswegians from the West side would be more sensible, sane and sound, rather than be caught up with that. ( I am a Glaswegian, born in the west side and now resident down south.)
Apologies, Pilgrim. I need to scrub up on my Weegie! They might well of been from Bridgeton, which of course is to the East.
Allan, thank you…..’you can take the girl outta Glasgow but you can’t take Glasgow out the girl’. Best wishes.
For whom is this project, practically speaking, intended? Who will join your CofE vision?
English bishops were unable to consecrate Seabury because the peace treaty with the Americans had not yet been concluded. They were afraid that consecrating the loyalist Seabury would be seen as an unfriendly act. After the peace had been signed the way was clear to consecrate three Americans, White, Provoost, and Madison, so that there was the minimum three bishops to continue the English succession. I would be interested to see evidence of concern that the Loyalists were ever considered ‘pro-French’. in the 1840s, visiting Americans were not considered laymen. They were not able to preach because they had not… Read more »
“English bishops were unable to consecrate Seabury because the peace treaty with the Americans had not yet been concluded.” Many thanks, but the Peace of Paris (under which the UK gave de jure recognition to the US) was signed on 3 September 1783. Seabury’s consecration occurred on 14 November 1784 and he was in Britain for the whole of that time. As many will know, William White, rector of Christ Church w. St Peter’s Philadelphia had published an anonymous tract in 1782 proposing a scheme for a national Episcopal Church. Since there were no bishops, White proposed – as a… Read more »
Well, the White scheme would have lined up nicely with the idea of area superintendents instead of the Bishops in apostolic succession logic.
An awful lot of work went into seeing that didn’t happen.
Thanks as always for the detailed account.
Thank you, Froghole, for that clarification — I’m away from my sources at the moment. All of which goes to show, of course, the general (and un-Protestant) determination to conserve the integrity of the historic episcopal succession.
Just a personal anecdote. When I was installed as chaplain at Fontainebleau in the CofE Diocese in Europe, the taking of an oath was part of the service. (After consultation with legal counsel) as an American, I cannot take an oath to a foreign power or I’d have to surrender my passport. So, it was dispensed with, graciously. One supposes that oaths are required when they serve the purpose at hand, at the time.
Thanks. An ongoing issue for Americans ordained in the Church of England, too. Each time it happens, it’s as if for the first time!
Thanks for adding one important issue – state enforcement – to the long list of factors which may be leading to the Church of England’s current woes.
Ever since Constantine the Church has been able to use Imperial or State power to enforce the population’s compliance with Church teaching and values. Sometime this was with great ruthlessness, at other times a more subtle application of soft power.
But such levers of power are being disconnected, or no longer work.
Except of course more recently in all those places where the relationship between church and state has been legally severed.
Making the situation in England almost sui generis.
Sadly in England being sui generis is often regarded as a badge of honour, As a nation we are destined never to learn how to do things better by looking abroad.
I hear you. God bless.
Reply to Martyn Percy I’m unconvinced by Martyn Percy’s characterisation of the Church of England as Protestant, and his view that ‘The Protestant Reformation of the C of E was a constant set of actions over 500 years.’ This surely isn’t the case. However much it’s possible to argue that ‘Protestantism’ is inherent in the English character, and to see (for instance) Brexit as a renewal of this nation’s C16th rejection of external authority, Dr Percy just doesn’t make sufficient allowance for the impact of the Oxford movement and the subsequent catholic revival of the C19th, or indeed of continuing… Read more »
Thanks, John. I think the issue rests on how much weight to place on self-designation. It’s true that there are some in the CofE and elsewhere in the Anglicansphere who don’t like to regard themselves as ‘Catholic’ and prefer ‘Protestant’. And vice-versa. But self-designations can’t easily be said to carry significant weight externally. There are High Church Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians. What are we to make of these Protestant expressions of Christian faith and their Catholic accents? Do Roman Catholics – officially, doctrinally and ordinarily – actually regard Anglicans as Protestants, or, like themselves, as Catholic? It is clearly the… Read more »
It’s probably worth adding that 20th century religious studies and academics were given to drawing the ‘family tree’ of Christianity (the trunk of the tree only divides at the Great Schism between Rome and Constantinople). The scholars and their family trees ascribe a major branch to Catholicism and its related branches such as Melkites and other Eastern Rite Roman Catholics. Another goes to the Orthodox. Protestantism is another major branch, albeit later than the Great Schism. The Protestant sub-branches include Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostalism (later) etc. I honestly cannot think of any – any – scholar or any ‘family tree’ map… Read more »
Thank you, Martyn, for your lengthy and firm response to my critique of your view that the C of E is institutionally (even irredeemably?) Protestant. As in all our previous discussions – not least those at Cuddesdon where you generously hosted the work of the Bloxham Project in support of chaplaincy in schools – you display an erudition and range I couldn’t match! However – I still think you overstate your case. Incidentally, I also take your point about clergy who call themselves ‘Father’ (touche!), though for my part I concluded it was the least bad of all the options…… Read more »
Thank you, John, for such a gracious response. I too have fond memories of our conversations at Cuddesdon. I broadly agree with much of what you say above. Yes, our liturgy derived from older Catholic rites. And there are some who invest theologically in that. I am more inclined to myself, as do know. But… the organisational ecclesial polity has no universal authority, catechism, canon law etc. And the ‘family trees’ I alluded to have Anglicanism clearly branching off at the Reformation from Roman Catholicism. It is worth noting, incidentally, that of the Reformation churches, Anglicanism spawned more splits –… Read more »