Tim Wyatt The Critical Friend Make or break
“Is the upcoming appointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury the last chance saloon for the C of E to save itself?”
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church Learning Lessons from the Rise and Fall of the Nine O’Clock Service
Helen King sharedconversations Is there a quorum in the House of Bishops?
I’m a bit puzzled as to what Ms. Coulter thinks an endowment is for. Yes, of course it is there to fund the organization’s day-to-day work. What was it given for, in the first place? What did a glebe support, if not the work of the local parish? And yes, a parish’s day-to-day work includes ministries of hospitality, not to mention aid for the hungry. So yes, chocolate biscuits–and so much more. How does a parish attract families with children if there are no chocolate biscuits? If national systems are worried about parish fiscal accountability, then the solution isn’t to… Read more »
LLF effectively nullifies the churches doctrine on marriage. If a priest teaches the biblical orthodox C of E doctrine on marriage then those in favour of LLF and SSM potentially see this as a safe guarding or even a CDM issue. There is no guarantee that a revisionist bishop will protect them in such circumstances. That is why orthodox bishops and priests need strong legal protections and why a third province is not only necessary but vital for the well being of every priest and bishop upholding orthodox views on marriage. For those who chose the LLF path they will… Read more »
It should be relatively straightforward for Synod to pass legislation negating CDM proceedings on the basis you describe. Holding two ‘integrities’ on a non-sacramental matter doesn’t require a third province or special bishops.
The behaviour of the Diocese of Derby towards The Revered Bernard Randall suggests that it might not be quite so straightforward. It would seem that at least some would like to be able to prohibit the teaching of traditional Christian ethics on these matters.
That is not at all a typical case, being more a School matter than a Church one. Overlapping authorities and requirements make things messy. The teaching office of the priest in his/her parish church is uncontested.
The diocese still won’t give him a licence or PTO. That’s a diocesan matter, not a school matter.
Non-sacramental? Nowhere does our Anglican doctrine of marriage make that claim. Marriage between two baptised Christians is deeply sacramental, ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace’. ‘The law of prayer is the law of faith’; to know what Anglicans believe, look to what Anglicans pray. Our liturgy presents marriage as the ritual outworking of Ephesians 5, the one Bible passage that gives an explicitly Christian and positive account of marriage and the basis for its theology. Hence The Book of Common Prayer declares marriage to be ‘an honourable estate, signifying unto us the mystical union… Read more »
The Book of Common Prayer also includes Article XXV which contains the statement ‘Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.’ As Canons A2, A3, and A5 make clear, the teaching of the… Read more »
Marriage as ‘sacramental’ and marriage as a sacrament are not the same things. Anglican tradition has consistently put forward a sacramental theology of marriage, even if stopping short of naming it a sacrament. Liturgically expressed as an outworking of Ephesians 5:31-32.
I don’t disagree. I meant ‘non-sacramental’ in its literal sense, ie. ‘not a sacrament.’ As such, no delegated episcopal authority is required, unlike the sacrament of the eucharist.
That realisation came to me In the very act of posting. Thanks for the clarification.
I would thought that the very fact a Priest wears a stole to Solemnise Marriage, is tountermount to acknowledging it as a Sacrament, as stole is a sign of the Priest’s Authority by Ordination to administer the Sacraments. If the Marriage is not a Sacrament in the Church of England why wear a stole to Solemnise it, why not follow the Conservative Evangelical Practice of wearing a Black Tippet and a Scarf over a Cassock and Surplice to solemnise it. One cannot have it both ways! For what a Priest wears to solemnise Marriage, is a sign of what He… Read more »
According to Synod what vestments one wears (or doesn’t) is meaningless. I tend to agree. Except in the most ideologically-driven circles, people just wear what’s ‘in the tradition of the parish’, the reasons for which have usually been long-forgotten.
How odd.
Perhaps others in the CofE could weigh in. This statement is surely false.
“what vestments one wears (or doesn’t) is meaningless.”
Canon B 8 (Of the vesture of ordained and authorized ministers during the time of divine service) starts
So, officially, the choice of vesture is, if not meaningless, close to meaningless.
So if I may pick up on the comment of Mr Jamal, stoles have no meaning in the Church of England? One could wear them when celebrating Holy Communion or riding a bike to pick up toothpaste.
As amusing as cycling whilst wearing a stole might be (Isadora Duncan, anyone?), the Canon refers to what is worn ‘during the time of divine service’.
Of course it does. The point was rather that if a stole is meaningless, as ou wrote, you may use it to polish your shoes. It does not function in any meaningful way in the divine service and so it can be put to other service.
That is what your remark says.
In 2023, the RC Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Fiducia supplicans allowing clergy to bless people in same-sex relationships. These are to be “short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualised) of couples in irregular situations (but not of their unions)”. If you can see any difference between this and the use of PLF as currently authorised, do please say so. Such ceremonies are now permitted in every German diocese and in the Flemish speaking dioceses of Belgium. If Rome can do this without setting up additional provinces, why can’t Anglicans?
PLF happen in public worship and are authorised liturgical prayers. Big difference.
Well, the CofE is offering a liturgy,in church, and a blessing of the relationship and does not deem the couples to be in ‘irregular situations’, so no, it’s nothing like the Roman Catholic blessing of sinners on the hoof.
PLF were designed deliberately to bless the individuals, not the relationship. But you’re correct in saying the scope of Fiducia supplicans does not extend to the Mass. So we’re both half right!
But what is of far greater significance is that Rome – where ‘liberal’ has a very different meaning than in Canterbury – has even gone as far as it has. Unthinkable only a few years ago!
I thought we were all sinners?
Presumably those who use the prayers don’t regard the couple to be in an irregular relationship but those who won’t use the prayers won’t use them because they think the couples relationship is irregular / sinful / likely to exclude the couple from heaven. Anglican ” comprehensiveness” I suppose.
The church has had several doctrines of marriage. We’ve been over this many times.
Orthodox means believing in the doctrines of the creed.
All the bishops i know who support SSM / LLF are orthodox.
Orthodox as for example in – following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice. Simple English. As I said the revisionist bishops are not orthodox when it comes to marriage. The Christian faith is about much more than the Creeds which were designed to settle disputes on specific theological and doctrinal issues. There has been no dispute about marriage until recently. The revisionist bishops don’t uphold the churches doctrine on marriage, until recently they didn’t seem to know there was one. And of course we don’t yet know what their… Read more »
Since Augustine the Church has had a doctrine of marriage – one that has not been immune to shifts in the social/familial landscape. For example, the CofE’s liturgical reordering of Augustine’s three ‘goods’ in the 70s, putting the unitive goods before procreation, was probably influenced by the advent of reliable contraception. Theology cannot ignore life as it is lived, but instead of abandoning Augustine we can reimagine his legacy for a world he could never have imagined. Advocates for the solemnisation of SSM have work to do, as Durham Uni’s Mike Higton, one of the more thoughtful supporters of… Read more »
Which perhaps makes the point that a more spacious view of marriage will remain unorthodox, until that wider understanding of marriage has been fully developed and understood by the church. At that point we may be able to see that it is a good and right extension of the traditional understanding. But until the new understanding is formulated sufficiently clearly that people know what it actually is, it will remain unorthodox since its orthodoxy cannot be demonstrated. Just saying that any change must be orthodox because the traditional view has changed somewhat over time doesn’t cut it, because it begs… Read more »
Indeed.
Is orthodoxy teaching that women should ‘obey’ their husbands? Is it understanding marriage as an economic arrangement in which the bride is given away into the care of her husband who will now support her? Neither of these views is, I suspect, believed by a great many in the Church of England, let alone its bishops, but they do represent accepted ‘orthodoxies’ of the (recent) past. And these ‘orthodoxies’ were well-supported by an appeal to the plain words of scripture. I’m not unsympathetic to the suggestion that expanding marriage to include same-sex couples is innovative, but let’s not pretend there… Read more »
Does ‘marriage’ have any essentials or irreducibles, Evan? Or is it infinitely malleable? A permanent, exclusive, faithful union between one man and one woman? Where would authority come from to vary or excise any of those aspects?
That’s an interesting question.
Where did authority come from to set aside the “irreducible” aspect of permanency in marriage and allow for divorce and remarriage. If that change is possible, against clear scriptural mandate, why not a change towards same sex marriage.
Moses was allowed to permit divorce.
Thanks for your answer Adrian, but that still raises questions. The commentary around this issue suggests that whilst God’s intention is for the high standard of a permanent and faithful heterosexual marriage, there is the recognition of human weakness, and pastoral provision is made for those who are unable to maintain these high ideals. But are there double standards in the application of this pastoral provision in today’s church? It seems that heterosexual people are to be allowed such pastoral provision with few restraints. Not only lay people but priests and bishops can get divorced and remarry, and the head… Read more »
Keeping it simple:people either freely chose to use scripture as a framework for living or they don’t. You seem to want it both ways. Everywhere in scripture same sex relations are forbidden. No grey area. Many gay Christians find they can flourish living within the framework of scripture. It’s for everyone to make up their own minds, but don’t pretend to say that scripture says something it clearly doesn’t.
We must be reading the same Scriptures with very different eyes. Keeping it simple: is heterosexual adultery, with its painful betrayals and collateral damage to innocent parties, a lesser sin than monogamous, faithful, ” in sickness and in health etc” sexual relations in a same sex marriage? Reason is a gift from God too and it tells me that such an application of scriptura sola is wrong. It makes God look cruel and arbitrary, allowing failing heterosexuals a fresh start and faithful gay people no start at all.
Everyone gets a fresh start if they truly repent. How is that cruel and arbitrary? But profound differences in the way we read scripture is one of the reasons why it is difficult to resolve the issue of SSM and why a third province is necessary.
Err, back to this very late! Well, if ‘permanency’ or ‘indissolubility’ of marriage have very clear scriptural mandate, we shouldn’t have set them aside, should we? If we have set aside this one clear scriptural mandate, surely we can set aside any other we may wish to, and scripture is made null and void. Personally I think the Matthean (Mt 19) and Pauline (I Cor 7) exceptions make the idea of marital indissolubility non-scriptural. Which is why in exceptional cases remarriage in church may be appropriate. But the scriptural principle of permanent intention must remain, so the cultural creep into… Read more »
an economic arrangement in which the bride is given away into the care of her husband who will now support her
That is a tricky and complex one. In these days of so-called equality, many, if not most, maintain this concept, although it may be well hidden.
‘What first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels’ ?
But it has always until recently between a man and a women. The C of E’s position is that marriage is between and man and a woman, although as we know if it’s taught priests currently risk losing their licence. However it is theologically coherent in that it represents the relationship between Jesus and the church, a mutually beneficial and binding relationship. As the church (the bride) obeys Christ (the husband), the church receives every spiritual blessing, this binding commitment is only broken if the church is unfaithful, as God is always faithful. Similarly husbands are to love their wives,… Read more »
This is equally incoherent. What if a wife (female) refuses to obey her husband as a default? What if the wife (male) promises to obey their husband? Ss the former in a sinful/unorthodox position, and a priest should refuse to marry them, and the latter in a sinless/orthodox position?
Seems to me that life itself is incoherent, and attempting to make logical sense is fraught with frustration.
As I said theologically it is coherent, what people do about is up to them and we have the C of E and society as it is today – incoherent.
It is only theologically coherent if the wife/bride promises to obey her husband. Is that a pre-condition of a theologically sound marriage? If that is your view, then it is coherent.
Good luck.
Thanks for agreeing.
Worry not, the rules for CDMs rule out doctrine, ritual or ceremonial.
“3.These rules apply to proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 alleging misconduct against a clerk in Holy Orders, other than in relation to matters involving doctrine, ritual or ceremonial.”
But they can have their licence revoked as we know.
Ms Coulter is part of the new class of unaccountable, unregulated and untrained non-executive managers and directors running the CofE. Just as John Spence famously said that money shouldn’t be given to theological colleges so students (just) read books, Ms. Coulter is now telling clergy how to conduct parochial ministry. Neither Spence or Coulter has theological training. But they’re in charge of the cash, and make unaccountable imperious judgements as to what they think should be funded. The tables are never turned. Clergy can’t tell Spence or Coulter how to run a trust, charity or finances. Synod is in awe… Read more »
Stephen Parsons’ article about the Nine O’Clock Service makes some very interesting points about power, and the abuse of power. Most cults are abusive. But they also have to do their own recruitment and legitimisation. Take, for example, the bizarre case of Workers’ Institute of Marxism–Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought which ends up as the more accurately titled Lambeth Slavery Case, It’s hard to know whether Aravindan Balakrishnan started out as a good faith political thinker (probably not), but he certainly ended up as an appalling abuser, and few would mourn his death in Dartmoor prison. But he had to do his… Read more »
A very good point. Thanks.
Interested Observer.
I really appreciate your viewpoints on TA. Thank you.
If Pilavachi is as dangerous as you say, why isn’t he locked up?
According to Alison Coulter, a Synod member who also chairs the Archbishops’ Council (ABC), “The past year had been “traumatising” for those like her in high positions in the hierarchy, and the last thing they needed was for someone to “come in and throw everything around, change everything””. Using the word ‘Traumatising’ to describe her experience on ABC over the last year seems to me to be wildly over the top. Worse still it is grossly insulting to all those CofE safeguarding survivors/victims who have been genuinely traumatised, first by the criminal clerical perpetrators, & second by the endless incompetence… Read more »
Wyatt’s article describes Alison Coulter a couple of times as “Chair of the Archbishop’s Council” and you repeat that here. Alison’s position is that she is the elected vice Chair of the House of Laity of the General Synod, which makes her ex officio a member of the Archbishops’ Council. The two Archbishops are joint presidents of the Council and my understanding is that the Archbishop of Canterbury normally chairs the meetings. Is there any note of who is chairing meetings during the vacancy at Canterbury? I’d imagine it to be the Archbishop of York.
GS Misc 1413 – Report on the activities of the Archbishops’ Council – was included in the papers for July’s General Synod, and includes this paragraph. Chairing the Council 5. For some time Council meetings have been chaired by members other than the Archbishops. The Council has noted that preparing its meetings and ensuring follow through – key functions of a chair of a large charity – demands substantial time and attention. This leadership capacity is particularly important as we move towards the transition to Church of England National Services. The Council has therefore asked Alison Coulter to perform this… Read more »
Coulter told me she had been asked to become chair earlier this year, after Welby stood down and it was decided it would too much of a burden on Cottrell’s limited time to also chair the council. But it was kept quiet at the time, she said, to try to avoid hostile press coverage framing it as the council ‘deposing’ Cottrell. And it is baked into the new CENS body which will shortly replace the council that its chair will be a lay person and not either of the archbishops.
I was was interested in Ms Coulter’s extraordinary comment about ‘how some clergy seemed to be significantly more radical on the issue than their congregations (who, after all, make up 98% of the church’s membership compared to the dog- collared elite)’.
Is she really saying that because clergy are relatively small in number compared to the laity that their views don’t count? With views like these who needs the Archbishop’s Council.
I think it could be said that the past twelve years have been traumatising for many clergy and lay people as we had to endure an archbishop who came in and threw everything around and changed everything. We’d appreciate a period of being left alone to pick up some pieces now.
“we had to endure an archbishop who came in and threw everything around and changed everything”
Really? In the parishes? How? In my church contestants on Love Island probably had more influence than the Archbishops.
Perhaps your parish and diocese didn’t lose staff as a result of changed funding formulae. In which case, give thanks.
I don’t think contestants on Love Island somehow managed to close churches at the very time they should have been open and ban clergy from entering them under threat of ‘disciplinary action’ . That mindset, coupled with the insistence of pursuing a management model of leadership, had a profound impacts on local churches and those who worship in them
And what would have been the impact if the churches had stayed open and holding regular services and a significant portion of the parishioners had become ill (and possibly died) from covid?
Covid spread and people died despite lockdown, because you can’t govern your way into the control of an airborne infection. It was totalitarian anthropolotrous madness which naturally led to failure, frustration and scapegoating. While all the time gatherings of various kinds were occurring among those in power. If we had adopted a Swedish approach to pandemic response then parishioners who wanted to worship could take that risk, and those who wanted to self-isolate could have Zoomed in. That was the case from July 2020 onwards, and could have been the case from the start. But the State tyranically and blasphemously… Read more »
And if those who wanted to worship and took the risk died in the hundreds because of a single church gathering, what would have been the public reaction?
BTW, since the CoE is an established church, is the State not the one in charge?
Hyperbolic nonsense, if you bother to study the actual mortality stats for COVID.
If Establishment means Jesus isn’t in charge of the church, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Any anti – vaxers want to join in?
Is this wandering a little off piste from the NOS?
Not true of all churches. My own church obeyed all the Government directives and stayed closed when we were obliged to. However, once those nationwide directives were eased, we did a lot of risk assessment and all the rest of it, re-opening fairly soon after it became legal and rigorously enforcing social distancing etc. I am not aware of anyone who became infected because of that. The Baptist Union offered very strong and helpful guidelines; however we are a non-episcopal connexion of independent churches so no hard-and-fast rules could be imposed by the denomination. We re-opened; others did not. We… Read more »
Nobody will ever know. I get the thought behind the question but that isn’t the point behind the comment. The arguments are well worn and I don’t intend to rehearse them, except to point out that ‘parishioners’ (by which I think you mean regular worshippers, therefore not in the proper sense of the word) did become ill and did die. My former church lost at least four longstanding and regular worshippers with a consequent scar which is only just being healed.
What exactly is wrong with a ‘management model of leadership’? Do not leaders have to manage? I seem to remember many of Jesus’ parables were about management. Of course, there is good and bad management….
Clergy had a greater threat of a touch on the shoulder from local police officers, compared with ‘disciplinary action’.
The problem with a managerial approach to ministry is that it inevitably reduces everything to something that can be counted and optimised. So funds get distributed to those who tick the approved boxes whilst parishes and dioceses struggle to pay the bills. Churches become units that need to be managed rather than sacred spaces which enable encounter and hold corporate memory. Clergy get reduced to being regarded as “key limiting factors” – it may have been an unknown underling who used that phrase, but the thought process led to it being used was straight out of the ‘reform and renewal’… Read more »
If you were a terrible vicar who had lost their faith years ago, isn’t that just what you would say?
I would also say that if I were a thoughtful and imaginative parish priest who saw the pandemic as an opportunity to minister to a wider public, who had spent hours arranging the inside of her church to be a welcoming but safe space, carefully arranged ways of providing refreshments, only to be thwarted by the insistence on locked doors and the threat of discipline if she didn’t comply. A negative, destructive and essentially faithless approach if ever there was one.
And if all her careful planning had proven to be in vain, with many of her flock getting ill or dying, what then? Especially since all that planning could not prevent one person who was infected at her church from becoming a kind of “patient zero” in the wider community?
Government has a duty to protect all.
Counted and optimised? That is poor management. Good managers understand the importance of branding, culture and team spirit.
Good managers also understand the art of delegation. Unfortunately this seems to be an alien concept to most clergy that I have observed.