Neil Patterson ViaMedia.News A Tale of Two Reports
David Runcorn Inclusive Evangelicals No turning back – holding fast in a hesitant church
Paul Avis Church Times Ailing and failing: the Church of England has lost its way
“An institution that is marred by scandal and division needs to prioritise ethical thinking and acting”
I’m very grateful to Paul Avis for his article. When we both worked together in the Diocese of Exeter I sometimes had disagreements with Paul, very notably over the Anglican Communion Covenant, which he seemed rather sold on at the time. From the tone of his article, I sense that his own thinking has moved on a little, especially in his suggestion that the LGBT+ community find themselves excluded from church life. I enjoyed his conclusion and reference to John Oman in the first world warm and the ethical dimension. I suppose the problem is that there is a very… Read more »
Paul Avis’s article appeals to me on an emotional level. It is heartfelt and good-hearted. But…… I’m unconvinced. The “presenting issue” (i.e the one everybody is talking about) might be safeguarding failures but I don’t believe that’s the reason why so many people don’t attend Sunday worship. The main reason is surely that people just don’t believe that supernatural stuff any more? I suspect my parents didn’t believe it either but their social world revolved entirely round the Church. I was a thinking, serious-minded, church-attending, teenager in a very high Anglo-Catholic church in Wales when “Honest to God” was published. My confirmation classes, with… Read more »
What a refreshing comment. I believe part of the reason for Church decline is the type of biblical, superstitious drivel that has been in the ascendency for the last few years. I would add Richard Holloway to John Robinson’s attempt to convey a mature and sensible faith to a doubting population. The people are asking for bread. We give them anti-gay evangelical nonsense in the hope they’ll become as hateful and narrow-minded as we are.
Much value in your words. I remember a priest telling us (when I was a young boy) that God was not an old man with a beard sitting in heaven above us. Yet, so much of our language clings to that concept. Who or what is this God which has a will? What is the nature of God? How can we communicate that, other than vague terms like ‘ground of our being’? When we pray, to whom or what are we praying? My least favourite verses are the last verses of psalm 137 ‘By the rivers of Babylon’, which are… Read more »
Good question. I have read – or at any rate tried to read – Tillich. And Caputo. But the C of E website doesn’t engage with that difficult stuff, it keeps it simple: “The faith of the Church is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the words of the Apostles’ Creed.” So that’s that. Forget the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans”. Those “ultimate concerns”. It was all sorted out long ago. The Church website has had a lot to say about the need for “new forms of Church.” But as Colin Coward suggested, in one of the first things I… Read more »
One can interpret the website slightly differently, though, Pam, I think. The Church maintains that it believes the faith proclaimed by the earliest disciples, and recorded by some of them in the New Testament, and doctrinally in the credal of the next few centuries — the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed (as revised at Constantinople), the Chalcedonian Definition. But it doesn’t say how those statements themselves are to be interpreted or understood in the 21st century. That is something which each generation, each person, has to do for themselves, bringing whatever intellectual, spiritual, emotional and other skills, experience and insight… Read more »
I think there is a difference between what a person needs to believe to be a Christian and what a Church needs to affirm to be a Church.
Yes indeed, up to a point, anyway. Hopefully there is some correlation between the two!
As one of the psalms for the 28th day it always comes in rather fittingly at Evensong for Holy Innocents.
‘people just don’t believe that supernatural stuff any more?’ People believe all kinds of supernatural stuff nowadays – from a white feather being a sign from their dear departed, to the accuracy of horoscopes, to the efficacy of crystals. Watch a travel documentary and see the presenter sampling the rituals of different faiths – including witchcraft (Joanna Lumley) – or asking for a shamanic blessing. A major department store in London offers tarot readings. Maybe part of the problem is that the faith we’re offering isn’t supernatural enough, or isn’t supernatural in the right way. Charismatic and Pentecostal churches seem… Read more »
Yes, I really I should have said “most people don’t believe that supernatural stuff”. And the people who believe in crystals or fairies or witches probably never attended an Anglican church anyway. I would take little – indeed no – convincing that a shamanic blessing, bestowed with goodwill, is as effective as one from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
So it depends on the goodwill of the one blessing, not the name evoked in blessing?
Yes, but blessing, for me, is a two-way process – it depends also, surely, on the “readiness” of the blessed to receive that blessing? If someone who is ill, or bereaved, knows they are on the “prayer list” of their local Church they might well derive real comfort from that knowledge. And that loving prayer is certainly “good for” those who pray. One can feel that without believing in the “Father Christmas” concept of God on which petitionary prayer depends (I’m grateful to the rector of my local church for that arresting notion).
I don’t think it matters whether you come to faith via a thirst for the supernatural (which a good many people clearly have), or via rational thought, or via hunger for social justice. They’re all important, and the Church of England must have room for all.
It’s also the case that even of people who “believe” in crystals or fairies or witches, it is a very shallow form of belief. It does not profoundly alter their world-view, their ethics, their behaviour: it’s a rather vague sort of belief which begins and ends with some approximate suggestion that the crystals are not just rocks. That’s true of much of what is known in some circles as “woo”: that there’s a range of “esoteric” or “spiritual” beliefs that are held by people for unclear reasons, that someones give those people some vague comfort, but basically have no effect… Read more »
‘It’s also the case that even of people who “believe” in crystals or fairies or witches, it is a very shallow form of belief. It does not profoundly alter their world-view, their ethics, their behaviour: it’s a rather vague sort of belief which begins and ends with some approximate suggestion that the crystals are not just rocks.’ What evidence do you have to support this? Wiccans (sometimes called witches) have a system of belief which profoundly influences their behaviour towards the natural world, and their ethics. People who believe in astrology guide their conduct by it – including Nancy &… Read more »
Note the word “profound”. I’d argue that the extent to which Ronald Reagan relied on astrology rather than, say, the influence of the Christian right, was trivial. We can assess the extent to which it is note by searching for the word “astrology” here and here and indeed here, It’s not mentioned. At all. It’d be an interesting research project. My broad contention would be that none of the systems of belief you list contain a wide enough set of doctrine to give you anything more than a hobby. Christianity, Islam and other major religions have something to say in… Read more »
IO, you seem to be comparing the most committed Christians with the shallowest of other supernatural belief systems. In my experience, a good many of those in church congregations invest no more in their ‘faith’ than Wiccans or spiritualists might do.
Yes, nail on head there. Also, some of the “most committed” Christians are influenced in very different directions by their beliefs. A sister in law of mine is a “very committed Christian” who is also Islamophobic and homophobic to a degree which profoundly embarrasses her offspring, as do her “creationist” ideas.
Most Wiccans and neo-pagans I’ve met have put considerable thought into what they believe and practise compared with the average cradle Christian.
And of course, crystals or fairies or witches are easy targets. As you said, Janet, ‘people believe in all sorts of supernatural stuff nowadays’. I regularly encounter indigenous people here in Alberta who are deeply formed by their traditional spiritualities, which include not only ceremonies but also dreams, vision quests, the telling and retelling of myths, and ethical teaching passed on by wisdom keepers. Some of them combine this with a version of Christianity, but many do not.
potential newcomer with an open mind will search the C of E website in vain for any indication that it has moved beyond third and fourth century theology. ” An incautious statement, not to say ill-informed, statement. I can think in the next 30 seconds probably of a dozen clergy and or theologians, or both, who’ve engaged with modern thinking and have been committed to, or contributory to, the Church of England. Begin with Rowan Williams, Oliver O’Donovan, Nigel Biggar, the late John Webster, Tom Wright, the late Stephen Sykes, Janet Martin Soskice (okay. She’s a Roman Catholic but still… Read more »
Though doubtless not as widely read as you I can think of clergy and others who have “engaged with modern thinking” too. I know and admire several personally and have read many others, including Richard Holloway. But I stand by my statement that the Church of England website is not a promising resource for those who are looking for signposting to such thinking.
I didn’t say that nobody is doing any interesting thinking. I suggested you would search for it in vain on the Church of England website.
If you are looking for people who deny the Creeds, you’re hardly likely to find them on the Church’s website.
I would question your language. I certainly know priests who do not see any need to accept the creeds as literally “true” any more than they accept the creation stories in Genesis as literally “true”. They might describe them as “poetry”. Is “denial” or “acceptance” appropriate language to describe our response to poetry? .
But when 10 different people recite the creeds it means 10 different things. What does ‘god’ mean? Or father? Or reigns? Or ‘on high’? It is all based on what pam calls a father christmas concept. I dont see any sign of the last 100 years of theology in our recitations.
A good few years ago now, Peter Vardy wrote a very good introduction for the general reader to four different ways of understanding “God”. If you haven’t read it you might find it helpful. The conceptions range from the very literal and anthropomorphic right through to an almost-abstract affirming how life can be lived: God as personal and everlasting God as timeless substance A linguistic view of God God as affirming a possible way in which life can be lived Having set out these different concepts, he then considers how it impacts on miracles, prayer, eternal life, evil, religious experience,… Read more »
Thanks. I will check it out. I think I have read quite a broad range of theology over the years, but not in a consistent manner. I consider the problem being more a question of what our message is, how the Christian message is perceived. One example – an article from the Times popped up in my browser, I do not have a subscription so could not read it, but the headline was: Can you really be a Christian without believing in God? The question, to me, is completely fatuous and negative. It is incredibly off putting for any seeker… Read more »
i had no idea. I had no idea about MLK. Just come across this essay by himself. There’s a lot in it. Written in a serious but accessible style.
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/chapter-iii-comparison-conceptions-god-thinking-paul-tillich-and-henry-nelson
There was a lot of deep thinking behind his brand and message ‘I have a dream’.
It’s always a risk to cite an author, especially an older one with whom folks may or may not be familiar; but allow me to take that risk in reply, just for the fun of it. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, in the style of his day, concludes a chapter titled Faith this way: “The traditions evolve. Men’s faith varies. God endures.” ( Bolding mine). Below is a longer excerpt from a bit earlier from that same chapter in order to provide a little context. ” There is nothing in heaven or on earth that can legitimately be called the Christian faith.… Read more »
Thanks. But I doubt the CoE website will be putting that up any time soon. I like this (easily understood) quote from your link A major trilogy on faith, comparative history of religion, and world theology (published in 1977, 1979, and 1981) linked early believing to beloving, denied that belief (in the sense of hypothetical opinion) is what religion is about, and argued that existential trust is what relates human beings to the transcendent, however named. Among Ernst Troeltsch‘s categories, Smith emphasized the mystical-poetic. Going back to Pam’s original post, I struggle when expected to recite the Apostle’s or Nicene creed, ‘I believe’ followed… Read more »
“But I doubt the CoE website will be putting that up any time soon.”. I doubt it too. lol! I post these kinds of things, like W. Cantwell Smith, or Lily Kruse in a previous thread, etc. etc. to encourage an opening up of the conversation around some of these matters. Seen from perspectives like religious studies, or art history, or literature, and so forth, a lot of the chit chat here has a very precise ecclesiastical ‘home on the dial’ in what could otherwise be a very generous channel capacity. But, I guess it all comes down to what… Read more »
Yes, the big difference being that we recognise a masterpiece by Bach, or Shakespeare, or Michaelangelo as works of man which can nonetheless speak to us in profound and important ways. One of my friends, who is Jewish, sings in various rather good London choirs, adores the Bach oratorios and appreciates a nicely delivered choral evensong. She’s not bothered about what is “true” (she’s not a religious Jew). She prefers Bach to Einaudi (about whom she is very rude!) but the language of “truth” or the “denial of truth” – issues on which Christians have been happy to slaughter each… Read more »
‘Not bothered about what is true’? Rather a sad statement (which incidentally was also the mindset of Pontius Pilate). The truth is beautiful.
Agreed, but truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
No, no, no Simon, that’s the way of self-deceit. Truth is far too precious to be treated in that cavalier fashion. What you describe is an opinion. There’s no lies, no “economies with the truth” in our God, even if we misunderstand him, ignore him or lie about him. If we’re to understand the ourselves, the world, the universe then the closer we can get to absolute truth, the better. Absolute truth, though often very uncomfortable, is the bedrock of our god.
For good reason, did Pam Wilkinson put her use of the word “truth” in inverted commas.
I think Pam’s comment was a bit more nuanced. Beloving can be as true as believing. Doesn’t a lot of this come back to David Jenkins and his ‘not just a conjuring trick with bones’. We can believe in the truth of the bodily resurrection, state it as we recite the creeds, and totally miss the point. We can question the singular occurrence of the bodily resurrection, worry as we recite the creeds, and yet embrace the point, live a Holy Spirit filled life based on a spiritual resurrection and redemption. The word which most commentators ignore is ‘just’. I… Read more »
I like Jordan Peterson’s “defence” of the “old man in the sky” conceptualisation.
The most complex thing we currently know of in the Universe is the human brain which we currently have no way of reducing to our own understanding.
Write that large and project it beyond our finite field of vision and the child like conceptualisation of the logos with a personality looks remarkably familiar….!
I agree. The lack of theological challenge and enthusiasm from the House of Bishops is not encouraging.
I still find real value in attending my open and inclusive Church but the deeper I explore my own faith the more I am beginning to view myself as “ CofE Adjacent” which probably reflects many folks attitudes – for a variety of reasons (some from opposite ends of the spectrum)
I remember years ago reading one of Susan Howatch’s ‘Starbridge novels that was set in 1963 when ‘Honest to God’ came out. One of the characters, a bishop’s wife, was asked by a young woman whether she had read ‘Honest to God.’ Her reply was “Yes, of course—in bed, so that Charles could kick me if I fell asleep!” This was exactly my response when I read ‘Honest to God’. Bishop Robinson thought he was liberating Christianity for a new generation. I was part of the new generation he was writing for, but his vision of God didn’t connect with… Read more »
Perhaps you are right that Bishop Robinson failed to connect with UK culture. But it’s true that the constituency you advocate has hardly been a roaring success either.
Advocate is a strong word. I’m not a big Beatles fan (more of a traditional folk music guy myself), but I’m pretty sure the massive numbers of young people, like me, who grew up in the 60s and 70s were shaped by the philosophy of rock music far more than the liberal theology of John A.T. Robinson. I’m thinking back to the year I left England, 1975, and the people who were in my year (I took my O-levels in June 1975) and the years immediately above and below me. I know of eight who attended a charismatic church (including… Read more »
Exactly! The Beatles had good marketing. yet they were just as ‘bad boys’ as the Rolling Stones.
I was at Hereford Cathedral at the time and the then Bishop of Hereford (Mark Hodson) was a frequent visitor to the school. I asked him what he thought about ‘Honest to God’. His comment was that it was the result of a bishop being stuck indoors for weeks with a painful slipped disc! Perhaps not the most theological of observations!
My guess is that it wasn’t so much Robinson’s ‘vision of God’ that affected his readers in 1963, more his introduction to a number of figures and theological disciplines that we’d been unaware of previously. Bultmann was our introduction to biblical critical method; Tillich to the philosophical dimension of faith; Bonhoeffer to the radical questioning of what faith can mean in modernity. And Robinson’s vision of Jesus as ‘the Man for others’ turned us towards the ethical implications of faith, as did his suggestion of love alone being the basis of all ethical decision-making. It was, all round, a seriously… Read more »
Exactly this. Robinson’s vision of God did not work for me, but his book introduced me to the idea that the traditional vision of God could be questioned, and that there were other scholars out there waiting to be found, and he set me off on a journey to find people like Tillich
In being that catalyst I am grateful to him. I am sure I am not alone.
I guess if you’re building your faith on Robinson, Tillich, Bultmann, and Bonhoeffer, you’re going to be reaching a mainly academic crowd with university degrees. That’s fine, but my guess is that it will leave out a sizeable portion of the population. I’m aware of the dangers of a purely emotional faith (as i am also aware of the dangers of a purely intellectual and academic faith). Surely what we’re looking for is a balance between the two? I’m also not sure how you discern the difference between ’emotional experience’ and ‘spiritual experience.’ After all, many mystics have had dramatic… Read more »
I remember reading a book by the late Douglas McBain, a Baptist minister in Scotland and England. In the very early days of the charismatic movement, he was discussing the way forward with a Church of Scotland minister (who had recently come into the “charismatic blessing”) and a Pentecostal minister. The CofS man ventured the opinion that his spiritual experience had supplanted his academic background, but the Pentecostal minister demurred: “No! We need your good theology”. He was of course right.
Reminds me of my very good friend Thomas Smail, of such blessed memory. “The Forgotten Father,” et al. He sought to balance Holy Spirit alive and academic guardrails. Ended up at Kings London with Fr John Zizioulas, Colin Gunton, Alan Torrance, and so many others. A hopeful ecumenical moment I sought to develop and extend in the 90s, before coming to Scotland to pursue the same. I miss his wise spirit and concrete Scots realism.
Thanks for this memory.
One of my favorite lines from him, which he meant generously, “The Charismatic Movement: 60% phony, 40% God. And 40% of God is a lot of God.” He discusses the joys and the deficits in his writing. The charismatic movement in his life–it was dramatic and entrenched–formed part of his larger interest in the Trinity. Hence, “The Forgotten Father.” One of the best orators I have heard in my life.
I remember a couple of his books, especially ‘The Forgotten Father’.
That would be Tom Smail, I’m guessing.
I’m sorry to be slow in responding, Tim. I think you are right about the difficulty in distinguishing between ’emotional’ and ‘spiritual’ experience, but I’m not sure that one would wish to ‘dismiss’ ’emotional’ experience: for instance, falling in love, loving, grieving loss – these are core elements of human living, close to the heart of who we are – and hence ‘spiritual’ too?
And as to a ‘balance’ between emotional and intellectual faith, what we would commend, surely, is a kind of faith that embraces the whole of who we are as people….
I’m in total agreement with this. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post, in which you seemed to be denegrating emotional experience. If so, my apologies.
Neil Patterson commends Love Matters for “presenting a theology of human relationships which responds more imaginatively to the great diversity of family situations where love is found in England today.” While Love Matters itself has (p101): “Studies of children growing up with parents of the same-sex have found no significant differences in child outcomes, adjustment, behaviour, gender development, wellbeing and self-esteem as a function of parental sexual orientation. …Children born to or adopted by same-sex parents are as likely as other children to thrive. The focus is clearly on relationship quality and family stability.” So why doesn’t the CofE extend… Read more »
I mean…I don’t think our vicars interview people looking at getting married in their church with a view to sussing out if they’re going to be procreative anyway. The answer on the CofE’s website to “marriage after divorce” is already “it may be possible”. These are both redefinitions of marriage, but we’ve become to accustomed to straight marriages that are by intention childless, and to the remarriage of divorced people, at least in the UK. Therefore, we’ve already redefined marriage – going off how we treat straight couples as a church, a marriage doesn’t have to have children, and can… Read more »
Chris, if you reach a point in your life where you and your partner want to get married, don’t forget that you can have an Anglican marriage in Scotland and probably Wales by then. Not what you’d ideally like perhaps but still authentically Anglican. Scan a copy of your marriage certificate and email it to your local English bishop. I know that none of this should be necessary but don’t let homophobes and equivocal bishops short change you and your husband to be.
I always ask about a couple’s attitudes to children and family when preparing a marriage service. The answer affects how I structure the prayers. Also many couples these days have children already, and it is important to consider the attitude of children (including children from previous relationships) to the event and to the service so that it is conducted in a manner which is pastorally attentive to the lived reality of family life. I would note that some prayers ask vigorously for children to be born of the marriage – some couples will want children, but may not be able… Read more »
Do we bless gay couples in a way that honours their goods, but without being marriage or do we invite gay couples to consider sacramental marriage – and redefine Church teaching for all marriages? This is the right question, thank you, Allan, for putting it so clearly. The Church of England’s default approach in all contended matters has been to make categories as broad as possible in order to include as many people in them as possible but I wonder if we are now approaching the outer limits of that strategy.
Mark Clavier may have been alluding to this in a recent piece in which he raises “uncomfortable questions”, including: has the Church grown “too anxious to avoid offence, or too eager to mirror the moral urgency of the moment?”
I think it’s probably important to actually consider what the CofE actually believes about marriage, not just what it purports to teach. It’s also worth considering whether the definition of marriage is arrived at from first principles, some discernment of essential nature, or whether it is simply empirical – a record of what the authors of the BCP et al observed around them. The church more-or-less adopted marriage, rather than creating it. Perhaps it is time to re-adopt it, based on what it is now rather than what it was 400 years ago?
For a Canadian Anglican, the endless decades of seeing the Church of England going forward and backward along with the running commentary of cynics, grumps, and naysayers seems so confusing and I can sense the discouragement in some of today’s articles. The situation in Canada is not similar, I admit. The Anglican Churchbof Canada is not part of the national conversation and our polarities are not as pronounced. That being said, the debate over same-sex issues was long and painful and its result was along the lines of an agreement to move forward, acknowledging that some disagree. The proximity of… Read more »
Is the congeniality of the ACC you note a function of its size (very small) and its liberal uniformity?
Your question relies on certain outside and incorrect assumptions. The “smallness” of the Anglican Church of Canada” has become a popular cliche, as well as its supposed “liberalism.” As “Protestants” in Canada go, we are still the second largest denomination. As background, the Canadian population was never large and Roman Catholicism has been dominant due to the French and Irish background of significant numbers. Canada has a significant indigenous population as well. The number of Anglicans in the Census was always much greater than those on parish rolls, and the number givers/attenders is smaller than that. This is not new.… Read more »
I agree with a lot of what you say in both your comments to date. However, I think it is important to point out that there have been significant tensions around the question of same sex marriage in our Canadian Church involving our bishops. Pace the observation by Anglican Priest, some time of Conservative Wycliffe College in T.O., the Canadian Church is not uniformly liberal. As a matter of fact, divisions on the same sex marriage file vote in the House of Bishops is a case in point . The vote failing in the order of bishops by a thin… Read more »
I am a Senior Research Professor at Wycliffe in the University of Toronto. I was on staff for a good many years at St Matthew’s in Riverdale.
The majority of Canadian Anglicans use and are happy with the BAS. Bishop Vicars Short, who chaired the Doctrine and Worship Committee that produced that book, would be surprised to hear it described as ‘liberal uniformity’.
How many Bishops in the ACC of Canada would consider themselves “conservative”? (Per the comment above) More than 50% of so called conservative students at Wycliffe are not Anglican; of those entering the ministry of the ACC, perhaps 25% at most. “Uniformly liberal” may be corrected to “liberal with some exceptions,” rather like the SEC or TEC, and like them, small and declining. The original poster spoke of “the endless decades of seeing the Church of England going forward and backward along with the running commentary of cynics, grumps, and naysayers seems so confusing” and contrasted that with the ACC.… Read more »
” ‘Uniformly liberal” may be corrected to ‘liberal with some exceptions,’ rather like the SEC or TEC, and like them, small and declining.’ ” Ah! Needful equivocation. Liberal as measured by what standard? Mine? Yours? Do you still have your ACNA gig in South Carolina? The Canadian Church is not uniformly anything. Are First Nations Anglicans ‘liberal’? What test would you use to evaluate that? Can the question even be raised? I worship here in Halifax at All Saints Cathedral which may be considered ‘liberal’ depending on the definition. A few blocks away is historic St. Paul’s, historically conservative evangelical… Read more »
To repeat.
“The original poster spoke of “the endless decades of seeing the Church of England going forward and backward along with the running commentary of cynics, grumps, and naysayers seems so confusing” and contrasted that with the ACC.
That’s because, unlike the ACC, the Church of England has a major conservative bloc. Of course if that were eliminated, the situation would be like TEC or the ACC.”
To repeat, what this conversation has established is that the Anglican Church of Canada is not, ” uniformly liberal/uniformly liberal with some exceptions” as you see it. I make this point for the benefit of other, perhaps interested, commentators here who are not familiar with the complex nature of the Canadian Church.
The original commentator spoke of the endless decades of X Y and Z in the CofE. The ACC is held up as an alternative. This is chalk and cheese. The CofE has a major conservative bloc, indeed arguably the largest bloc. The ACC does not. Surely this is not in question. So, in response to the commentator: “this explains the difference.”
The CofE has a rump of non-Anglican (by worship tradition, baptismal doctrine, polity etc etc) fundamentalists who pick the CofE because establishment gives them a route into schools and other institutions that wouldn’t be available to the sort of “non-denominational” church that they’d otherwise work for. That’s why its inclusive-reactionary skew is so different from TEC, SEC, ACC, and CiW.
In my diocese (Edmonton) those labels (conservative, liberal) are rarely used. My bishop is solidly orthodox in terms of the creeds, the authority of scripture etc. Many, however, would consider him ‘liberal’ because of his support for same-sex marriage. Professor Seitz, your experience of the Anglican Church of Canada appears to have been largely centred on Wycliffe College, the Diocese of Toronto, and the academic world. I have served in the dioceses of Toronto (1978-79), Saskatchewan (1979-84), the Arctic (1984-91), Athabasca (1991-2000), and Edmonton (2000 to the present), in both rural and urban parishes. I would say that many if… Read more »
Tim. Thank you, in passing, for this glimpse of your long, varied and faithful ministry. Respect! And for reminding us of the, mostly untold, stories and hard won wisdom that informs these discussion threads at their best.
Tim, I would like to say ‘ditto’ to David Runcorn’s comment on your contributions. I appreciate their pastoral experiential ground. As for the Canadian Church, I’ve often thought us a kind of microcosm of the The Anglican Communion, ‘uniform’ is just not a descriptor that makes sense to me as a Canadian Anglican. You mention bishop Tony Burton. I knew Tony from his time in our diocese here in the Maritimes. Prior to moving to Saskatchewan he served two parishes in my native Cape Breton, North Sydney as a curate and Sydney Mines as rector. Not long after his move… Read more »
Thanks for all of that, Rod, and especially the last paragraph. I totally agree. Trying to map my own indigenous friends onto traditional western theological categories is problematic, to say the least.
typo, that should read” First Nations groups do not draw upon…
That is a great difference with the C of E now…. Despite all the time given to liturgical reform we have a situation alas where many trad Catholics use the Roman rite and many evangelical parishes sit very light to any liturgy at all. People forget that the Act of Uniformity and the Prayer Book preceded the particular doctrinal definitions of the 39 Arts. I think Elizabeth 1st was on the right track!
Perry, one difference may be that our BAS gives a lot of permission for variation. An American priest who moved to our diocese commented to me that she was amazed at the number of times the word ‘may’ appeared in our rubrics.
Sorry to butt in one someone else’s thread, but does the ACC still have anything approximating to Anglican liturgical memory? Unlike your BAS, CW is a vast library of alternatives, a rich resource to many – including the liturgically unlettered – but also death to Anglican memory. I’m probably in a minority in feeling this as a loss.
Allan, I think we do. I am not, however, naive enough to think that it’s robust and resilient. Our most recently-issued daily office book is based on the Franciscan book and Common Worship: Daily Prayer, and I personally dislike it because it won’t stand still long enough to be memorised. Like C.S. Lewis, I find it hard to really pray a prayer until I’ve memorised it.
I suspect that one of the reasons we haven’t gone further down the ‘vast library of alternatives’ route is that the national church just doesn’t have the money to fund it.
“it won’t stand still long enough to be memorised” – now why didn’t I think of that phrase. Thank you, Tim.
Couldn’t agree more tbh.” By heart” is a good motto I think.
“The original poster spoke of “the endless decades of seeing the Church of England going forward and backward along with the running commentary of cynics, grumps, and naysayers seems so confusing” and contrasted that with the ACC.
That’s because, unlike the ACC, the Church of England has a major conservative bloc. Of course if that were eliminated, the situation would be like TEC or the ACC.”
That was the point of my comment. The ACC and the CofE have different compositions.
“The running commentary of cynics, grumps, and naysayers seems so confusing” — that comment seemed condescending and uninformed.
I understand, having been in the Anglican Church of Canada’s conservative block for a good number of years.
I also understand the pain of loving same-sex couples in the C of E who have been waiting, waiting, waiting, for decade after decade.
I have said before on this website – if I was in their shoes, I likely would not have waited. I would have gone somewhere else. I assume they stay because they love the Church of England and the Anglican way. I don’t think the Church of England recognises the depth of that love.
Professor Seitz, What you were saying was clear and not really controversial, although commentators may want to slice and dice terms. Among the significant differences between the Anglican Church of Canada and the Church of England is that the ACoC has a usual Sunday attendance of under 60000 across an enormous landmass, while the C of E has about ten times that number in a compact country. The C of E aldo has a small number of congregations that have over 1000 on a Sunday, and a good number more that draw 200+. Practically all of these parishes are evangelical… Read more »
Roger, I think one difference would be that in Canada what the Brits call ‘Safeguarding’ is a matter of diocesan policies, not national church. Our church is far more dispersed when it comes to policy issues, stipend levels, and so on. My understanding is that the C of E doesn’t have diocesan canons (I stand to be corrected if I’m wrong), whereas in our church we have canons at diocesan, provincial, and national church levels.
The CoE should be grateful for the Toronto Blessing that impacted many churches. Without it the CofE would be in a worse state than it is at present.
I fail to see how a paroxysm of pseudo-spiritual “gifts” has done anything good for the CofE. A lot of the CofE’s current troubles can be attributed to the influx of spiritually manipulative evangelicalism.
The Toronto Blessing comes from the charismatic stable, Jo, not evangelicalism.
But its manifestations in the CofE has been almost wholly within the evangelical sphere. Catholic, and presumably broad church, charismatics exist but it is evangelicals that seized on the use of emotional and spiritual manipulation en masse.
Not sure if this reply is meant for me or someone else. I haven’t mentioned the Toronto Blessing, which came long after my departure from England. My charismatic experience in the UK was in the early seventies; the book that had a huge influence on my own conversion was Dennis Bennett’s ‘Nine O’Clock in the Morning’.
When Dennis Bennett had his charismatic experience in 1960, he was the rector of St. Mark’s in the Van Nuys area of Los Angeles, a large English-speaking congregation.
St. Mark’s is a good example of how ministry changes over time. The church now does services in both English and Spanish, the interim is the retired primate of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil, and the priest associate grew up in South India.
No church is guaranteed a future just because of its past. The Church of the Redeemer in Houston once drew 1000 or more. Now it is closed.
The Holy Spirit blows at the will of the Trinity. The Chemin Neuf movement in France is happy to call to mind Dennis Bennett because their ecumenical emphasis is based upon the Holy Spirit.
There was an interesting dynamic I noticed in that era from more than one author: the first book written was a testimony of grace, the second was a “how to get it yourself” text.
Ethical matters can be very divisive, of course