Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Are Charismatic Evangelical Anglican churches becoming more welcoming and open to LGBTQIA+ people?
Jonathan Surviving Church Three Years On after a NDA: Lessons Learnt
Archdruid Eileen The Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley Re-envisioning the Midsomer Benefice
Many thanks to Colin Coward for his explorations. I did a similar tour around London diocese on foot, via tube, bus, etc. in 2011-15. I still make periodic forays (my office is now close to St Paul’s). The rehabilitation of St Leonard’s Shoreditch is, it has to be said, something of a relief: it seemed pretty benighted when I went there, but there were then significant crowds at St John’s Hackney (though it then badly needed a lick or more of paint). My experience of a decade or more ago was that central London had been metamorphosing into a sequence… Read more »
Frroghole, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments on y blog, drawn from your own experience. I’ve been living outside London for the last twenty-two years so I’ve not been aware of the metamorphosis that has been taking place. I’ve arrived from Wiltshire where something discernibly Anglican is still the norm. I’m not a priest who adhered unwaveringly forty years ago to what were understood to be normative, legal Anglican forms of liturgical practice and worship. I’ve now attended worship in nine different churches and as I’ve explored more widely from my usual comfort zone I’ve been shocked to discover how… Read more »
Many thanks, as ever, Mr Coward! Prior to the mid-2000s my experience of London diocese was really very limited, and my meanderings were really confined to Kent, Surrey and Sussex (including Greater London south of the river, formerly in Kent and Surrey). The franchise model appeared to have attained a certain level of maturity by c. 2010 and was expanding gradually, though not necessarily dramatically. This was most evident within the City, where Bishopsgate had taken on, or was about to take on, a number of flagging City churches, and also in parts of Kensington and Knightsbridge, where the Brompton… Read more »
Froghole, you are a wealth of information. I’m only now beginning to digest what you have provided here.
I’ve been wondering what label to use for these sets of churches – is franchise your word or an official name used by London Diocese – or the wider Church of England? Is there a common agreed format of how these franchises are set up? Is this all an insane aberration? I’m certainly haunted now by the experiences I’m having that some of these churches and their worship formats don’t seem to be Anglican in any way familiar to me.
Many thanks, Mr Coward! The word ‘franchise’ is merely my invention which came to me on the spur of the moment when writing my comment above, because it suggests a delegated authority, an operation which is subject to its own system of funding spread across a number of units, and a sales-pitch which is based upon a particular formula. I had both fast food businesses and medieval jurisdictions (such as the earls’ of Clare’s ‘lowy’ of Tonbridge or the bishops’ quasi-palatine authority in the Isle of Ely) in mind. As with medieval franchises it is likely that these contemporary ecclesiastical… Read more »
Thanks for mentioning Sir Paul Marshall, Colin. His influence on the Church of England (and on Justin Welby before his resignation) deserves to be more widely discussed.
In my opinion it is not a good look when the major sponsor of GB News is also the major funder of HTB, the Church Revitalisation Trust, and St Mellitus College.
I’m struck by Colin Coward’s description of the security at some of these churches. I have encountered an evangelical church whose doors are closed and only accessible if someone with a lanyard opens them for you. I really don’t understand why a church would conduct itself as if it were the HQ of a massive business. The cynical part of me assumes it is to keep out the poor and the lame, who might spoil the vibe.
Although I know some churches in the USA have security of this kind, for good reason (see the reports from Minneapolis this week), I am surprised to hear of it in the UK. My own parish, in Pennsylvania, does keep the doors locked when the buildings are not in use, but the idea of having a security officer at the door during worship services appalls me.
Security guards are an interesting quandary. Are they there to keep the rabble out, or to contain the cool young church things?
One part of Colin’s description struck me particularly, the experience of over-amplified sound. Clearly these churches might need to consider the needs of the neurodivergent and others for whom this intensity of sound would be a major barrier.
The new bright lighting in some places can be a significant issue for some withe sensory processing issues too. Overhead and 50 lightbulbs per chandelier – aargh.
Fr Dexter Bracey, I also was and am very suspicious of the reasons for employing security staff at these churches. I spoke to a guard at the SAINT church of St Leonard Shoreditch and was told it was in part to prevent rough sleepers, of whom there are many in the locality, from damaging the fabric of the church by urinating on it an physically attacking it. At the SAINT church of St John at Hackney I was told by a member of the team that it was also because staff members had been physically attacked and abused. My cynical… Read more »
I have to say that when I went to St Leonard’s on several occasions during Paul Turp’s very long tenure going through the portico did feel somewhat edgy (perhaps not helped by my being dressed in pinstripes or tweeds). However, the current state of Shoreditch is vastly better than it was even a short time ago. It is, after all, only a few metres from what was the Old Nichol (the fictional Jago) – arguably the most infamous rookery of all. Some of the scenes in this classic of 1969, with James Mason, were shot in and around Shoreditch and… Read more »
Tweeds on Friday only, I hope.
It’s good to hear from Colin Coward that some evangelical churches are more welcoming to LGBTQIA Christians but for me that avoids a fundamental question. As Christians we believe that we are all loved by God (Sinner and Saint).and God will judge, not us. So by what right does a church get to pick and choose who it welcomes to God’s table ? Our welcome should be unconditional and if it isn’t that is a grave sin. I am David not Dave because I was Christened David not Dave. I find it very ironic that the informality of “Dave” is… Read more »
Paul was a bit picky.
Paul’s world had other ways of being picky and he was very eloquent at demolishing those.
Matthew’s world was one of closed Qumran-style communities where solidarity is very important and where people who badmouth others are in danger of ‘the Council’ or even of the fires of hell if they say ‘Heretic’. Paul’s was one of communities very anxious about their reputation, so no place for a son who wanted to marry his deceased dad’s much younger wife, though they probably loved each other. So Matthew entertains the idea that because God judges all we should not judge each other – an objectively questionable inference, surely – there is little prominence for that idea elsewhere. It… Read more »
I would never walk through the doors of a Church where the minister’s name is Nicky, Dave, Pete or Matt. It’s bound to be insufferably ‘trendy’, very judgemental and where the preacher propounds arrogant evangelical certainty.
Yeah, after all Jesus would never have given his mates nicknames would he? He’d never have called his friends “Rocky”, or “Thunder sons” would he?
The nicknames Jesus gave didn’t define a particular brand of religion – unlike the cheesy evangelical product where shortened Christian names are de rigueur.
How can you be so sure?
My own parish has had rectors who were called Bill, Doug and Judy; as well as a couple of Michaels and a Jane.
What did you make of Don Cupitt?
I obviously can’t interest you in a ‘Tim’ Chesterton sermon this Sunday, then? Check out Lendrum Mennonite Church (you can watch the service later on if you miss it). I can assure you we’re the opposite of trendy (tho’ not, of course, Anglican), but at least we’re not old fashioned enough to have German hymns. I’m the preacher, and one of our long-time members, Adrienne Wiebe, is the service leader (it might interest some folks to know that her dad is the highly respected Canadian novelist Rudy Wiebe).
Are you ‘certain’ of that, Father?…
Absolutely not.
‘I would never walk through the doors of a Church where the minister’s name is Nicky, Dave, Pete or Matt. ‘
Isn’t that a little bit judgemental?
We all make judgements. Do you like Mr Putin?
Yes
I suppose he pretends to worship in the Orthodox Church and then murders millions of fellow Christians. But let’s not be judgemental.
How do you presume to judge that he ‘pretends’? And which ‘millions’ are you referring to?
I would have never believed a Putin apologist would appear on an Anglican website! I assume you wouldn’t judge that nice Catholic Mr Hitler either.
There’s a difference between our universal need to judgements and ‘being judgemental’, though, isn’t there? Or it would make no sense to vilify (actual, assumed or allegedly) judgemental attitudes as you do above. I don’t like Mr Putin, because of his actions, rather than a knee-jerk dismissal based on nothing more substantive than an abbreviated mane.
I don’t object to abbreviated names per se. But it is clear that churches with clergy who clip their Christian names are a likely to grin while preaching a judgemental diatribe of biblical certainty. Their names are a helpful warning to stay away.
I guess we all have our lines in the sand. I’m personally far more offended by churches that display national flags and military colours in their sanctuaries – the abomination of desolation standing where it has no right to be…
‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church … whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’
“You are Pete, and on this rock I will build my church … whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Doesn’t carry the same authority does it ?
I don’t understand your substantial point. St Peter died a long time ago. Do you suggest this authority was passed to the Church ?
Problematic. The personal authority passed to one man doesn’t really work with a deeply divided Christian Church.
I sympathise about diminutives. Decades ago lots of people continued to be known by shortened names at university and beyond, then felt unable to switch to their full names later. It may now be running its course. Yes, I do think the authority Jesus gave Peter passed to the church, otherwise why would he have given it? Surely Jesus’ authority would either remain with Him or some would be given to the church through history – it doesn’t make sense to me that one other man would need it and then everything would be sorted out. I agree with your… Read more »
Now I would have no problem with that one, provided it wasn’t accompanied by said Pete assuming a fake TV evangelist ‘ring of confidence’ grin and putting his head slightly on one side (in pastoral vulture pose) whilst nodding earnestly.
But had it been ‘Petey’….
Of course I’m entirely free of judgmentalism, nameism, traditionism, and all other ‘isms’ real, invented or imagined….not to mention somewhat deluded!!
Of course it is far more likely that Jesus called Simon “Kepha” or “Kepa” or possibly “Cephas”–the Aramaic word for “rock” and/or its Hellenized equivalent….since he didn’t speak Latin.
An observation from the late Harold Bloom, ” The disciples seem to have been chosen by Jesus not for their intellects but for their ruggedness, particularly Peter, a personality that everyone now would call Rocky, a role in films about Christ that seems apt for Sylvester Stallone. With the others, Peter seems to get everything wrong, as Paul was to complain at a later moment.” lol!
See: Harold Bloom. Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine. p.151
David, part of my reason for undertaking this research mission is that I’d like to discover whether, as my prejudice assumes, these new charismatic Chistian resource churches are almost by default conservative and “traditional” and “Biblical” in their teaching about homosexuality, teaching which to me is homophobic. I’m discovering that my prejudice is questionable and that in practice, they are not picking and choosing who they welcome to God’s table. I agree that God’s love is unconditional – and infinite and intimate – but I’m not sure in what way it’s a grave sin if it isn’t. Most of us… Read more »
It would be most helpful if Colin Coward would name those churches that employ security staff in high viz jackets controlling entry on Sundays. It’s not a feature that I have come across.
Ummm…there is some info in the article. Take a closer look perhaps?
But you are not alone in being surprised.
It might be helpful if anyone has experience of being ejected from a happy clappy church by evangelical bouncers.
‘I was quietly worshipping when an opinionated Anglo-Catholic wearing a hi-vis stole ejected me for being excessively happy and being known as Steve’.
you obviously saw the videos of the Bishop of Fulham’s impromtu performance
The poor man couldn’t sleep because of the evangelical noise.
Churches are mentioned without any statement that they employ security staff in high viz jackets. Certainly the two people standing welcoming at the doors of St John’s Hackney are not security staff. Colin needs to be clearer in his statement. Perhaps you have more information to help me.
Bob, I have come across security guards or personnel outside St John at Hackney, St Leonard Shoreditch and Christ Church Spitalfields. There have also always been welcoming stewards at each of these churches and I have had good conversations with them. This doesn’t stop me thinking that having security guards gives a very unfortunate message. Do security guards have to be wearing “hi-viz jackets” and do they have to be “controlling entry”? Do Trump’s security detail always (or ever) wear hi-viz jackets? Those outside churches might be there to control behaviour outside the church. They might also be there to… Read more »
Quick question: Do the churches with “hi-viz” security tend to be the places what “packed to the rafters”? Is it possible the restrictions on entry are merely to avoid dangerous overcrowding?
Pat O’Neill – no, there are security guards at the entrances and there are Welcomers appointed by the church. Neither group is there to prevent overcrowding. All the churches I’ve visited have been cleared of pews, replacing them with individual chairs. In every case the number of chairs is clearly tailored to the number of people expected and never occupy much more than 50% of the space available. At Christ Church Spitalfields there were about 140 people. At it’s height Spitalfields probably had 1,000 or more seats.
I think there is a big difference between having security guards and having personnel outside a church. I agree the welcomers outside are a great idea, very friendly and I hope very helpful especially for newcomers. I always appreciate a friendly, helpful welcome at the door of church. Do you consider those shown on SAINT website to be security guards? Are they really wearing high viz jackets? Are they really controlling entry? I would say no to each question. No need to muddy the waters by mentioning Trump and including speculative comments.
The reasons are very practical. It is not difficult to work this out. Many Resource Churches (around the country, not just in London) are working among the poorest and most needy, and in some in the most deprived areas of cities. There are very practical reasons, in the pastoral context of communities deeply damaged by alcohol, drugs and much else, why safeguarding provision is needed when the church gathers. It is to protect not to exclude.
Are you able to give some examples of this? My own observation, which may be geographically limited, had been that Resource Churches are in city centres and that their appeal is mainly to the young and affluent.
Many of us are working in such challenging areas, but generally we manage without bouncers on the door.
Bob, those standing at the entrance to the churches are most definitely not wearing Hi-viz jackets and are also most definitely security guards and on two occasions they have prevented my entry. You are right to say no to the first statement and wrong about the second.
I think that Colin Coward is correct in picking up that there is a steady move towards inclusion among evangelical charismatic christians. However, not all their leaders support this or are enabling the conversation that is needed. Some is this led by LGBT+ church leaders. Here is one very good example that is growing fast – https://fruitfulconference.com/
Can I encourage folk here to pray for the growth and flourishing of this movement?
Why do some Anglican clergy refer to people as ‘folk’??
Presumably for the same reason that the rest of us do. It’s been part of my active vocabulary these 80 years ….
And what is that reason?
And after all, the splendid Eileen is Archdruid of the Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley.
Honestly – the things ‘people’ choose to fight about at Thinking Anglicans! ‘Straining out a gnat’, anyone?
Quite so. It’s a satire, isn’t it?
Thanks David, that is a helpful comment. Those of us who work in LGBT+ Christian support/chaplaincy receive many anecdotal reports that in such churches, congregation members are, in the main, entirely happy to be supportive of LGBT+ people, and have many good relationships with such people in school, work, etc. But those same congregation members have learnt not to voice their feelings openly within a church setting, or at least within the hearing of the leadership. It’s good to hear that things may be slowly changing. Is it that leaders are changing their minds, or is it a generational thing… Read more »
Simon. You describe the situation well. And the reasons for change are as you suggest too I think. A mix of factors. The evangelical tradition has a long track record of strongly resisting changes in established beliefs when new questions come along, but steadily coming to accept them. The understanding of scripture is core to this. But all traditions have their own reactive reflexes at such times of course.
Evangelicals exist to adhere to Scripture and endlessly quote verses to prove their beliefs. Since they don’t agree on what their core beliefs are, with regard to Scripture, what is the point of being an evangelical who quotes scripture to prove Scripture? It’s tautological nonsense.
Or perhaps internal coherence. Without scripture, where does one find an authoritative stepping off point into the work theology?
Scripture witnesses to the church’s recognition of scripture’s authority. Step away from that and incoherence reigns. Firstly, the relativism of truth-seeking without a canon to guide. And second, alienation from the church’s practise from its outset.
I think you missed out the word ‘some’ at the start of your comment. Unfortunately, that small ‘some’ may be the most noisy.
I love it when non-evangelicals who hate our tradition pronounce confidently on why we exist. As if we aren’t here to speak for ourselves.
But you are here, Tim.
‘Evangelicals exist to adhere to Scripture and endlessly quote verses to prove their beliefs.’ Says the guy who despises evangelicalism.
I would never presume to make categorical pronouncements on Thinking Anglicans about why Anglo-Catholics exist. How would I know why they exist? I don’t have a window into their hearts.
i think he has had bad experiences with some whom he considers to be evangelicals, but are far from it. When I walk down Croydon pedestrian area, there are many people with loudspeakers preaching verses. I admire their enthusiasm, but I fear they put more people off than they attract. They are not evangelicals in my book, but FrDavid H may consider them to be. Similar with those who phone into LBC and start the conversation with ‘as a Christian..’ and then talk about sex in a very obsessive, uncharitable way. How Christians appear to the general public, who rarely… Read more »
Perhaps you might say that Trump’s MAGA evangelicals are not evangelicals. Or those in Croydon streets and extremist LBC listeners are not evangelicals. Why? If they say they are, they are.
Other forms of nonsense are available…. though perhaps heavily booked already
David – I wish I’d known about the Fruitful Conference movement when the first two events were organised. Perhaps I did and allowed my prejudice to influence me. I certainly hope to be at next year’s event and I’m praying for the growth of the movement.. You might (or might not) be able to help me with a question I’ve been struggling with. How do I/we know how to distinguish between an LGBTQIA+ inclusive evangelical charismatic Christian church and one that is prejudiced and adhering to a theological or Biblical position that condemns homosexual relationships and intimacy? I know from… Read more »
Greetings Colin. Thank you for your research. Not easy to answer your question. On the Inclusive Evangelical Facebook page – now with more than 2000 members – people frequently ask for guidance about the presence of inclusive evangelical churches in towns or cities where they are moving or where their children are going to university for example. I note how often people know of somewhere. The only public network to sign up to is Inclusive Church – and some have. But that is not easy for churches where there is range of opinion on this, as many of evangelical churches… Read more »
Colin, thanks for flagging this issue again. The Mennonite church I currently attend in Edmonton is going through a discernment process about this issue right now, and I think most people (70%?) want to move forward. But two things we often hear from the 30% who are resisting are (1) ‘Well, of course we welcome everyone’, and (2) ‘Why do we have to be explicit about it on our website/literature/social media?’ Whenever I have the opportunity I try to emphasize how important it is for 2SLGBTQIA+ people to see/hear explicitly that they are welcome, not only to attend, but also… Read more »