…the Anglican experiment is far from over. For in a world of mounting religious tension, now more than ever we need the witness of precisely the sort peace treaty attempted by the Church of England.
Not, of course, that we as a church have been very good at resolving our differences over women bishops. Which gets us to the core of the problem. What happens when principles clash?
This isn’t a churchy problem to be waved away by those not involved. For what’s at stake here is how we live alongside those with whom we fundamentally disagree. The Anglican answer has always made peaceful co-existence the priority. And that can mean compromising one’s principles in the name of a greater good. And yet, of course, compromise has a limit – especially when the issue is regarded by many as a fundamental question of justice. So here then is the tragedy: even in a church of natural compromisers, compromise can’t always keep people together.
Fundamental justice to the Church Tradition or current wags and agendas? Tough decision. He who marries the spirit of the age is soonest a widower and she who marries the spirit of the age is soonest a widow. Everyone should compromise their principles except, of course, those who insist they alone know what “justice” is after two thousand years or so and two catholic traditions, Roman and Orthodox, that contradict their innovations.
The history judgment isn’t right – or rather its a projection of the post Oxford Movement modus vivendi back into earlier centuries. Reformations aren’t explained by the thought of “keeping everyone in the big tent” (indeed without the claim that there was something fundamental wrong with late medieval Catholicism then the very existence of the COE looks to me unjustifiable), nor recusancy laws, nor prohibitions on catholics voting or holding office, nor a bloody civil war, nor the panic at the prospect of a Catholic monarch, nor the non-jurors, nor the rise of Methodism, nor the great evangelism without and without England in the nineteenth century, nor Tractarianism, nor the riots against Anglo Catholic priests etc. etc.
Yet it’s true that the twentieth century COE has broadly followed a live and let live policy. Catholics and Liberal Catholics largely made policy and Evangelicals could do what they wished so long as they kept out of the way. Keele 1967 began to change all of that.
Thanks, driver8 (#2). You know much more about the CoE than I do, since you’ve lived and ministered there. I think you’ve actually understated the problems with this opinion piece by Canon Giles Frazer, which is a very British and charitable thing to do. As usual, I would be much harsher myself in criticizing its flaws.
This sort of trite, shallow relativist nonsense makes me sick. It’s a perversion of true Broad Church or Latitudinarian Anglicanism, for any such approach that’s worthy of the name Anglican, or Christian, simply MUST distinguish between adiaphora or non-essentials about which toleration and compromise is in order, and non-negotiable essentials of the Christian faith, which aren’t subject to compromise at all. Unfortunately, and symptomatically, Fr. Frazer completely glosses over that all-important difference.
Genuine religion is about ULTIMATE values. And ultimate values, by definition, aren’t subject to compromise. They aren’t means to some higher end, like social harmony and tranquility.
The perverse watering down of religion that Frazer’s facile piece represents amounts to mere agnosticism with a thin veneer of piety. His vacuous platitudes epitomize all that’s worst about Constantinian, state church religion, which is ever prone to subvert authentic Christianity by subordinating the Church to the needs of the State, above all else, the pre-eminent need to foster and sanctify the unity of the State.
Yuck. This is nauseating stuff. I’m allergic to it. I admit that I just can’t stand state churches! Or their spokemen who mouth such empty, craven nonsense as this. As far as I’m concerned, the only thing worse than a state church is an ex-state church that still pretends to be a state church. Or a former state church that simply can’t imagine any other way to operate.
And that applies to TEC at least as much as it does to the CoE.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of post-Christendom, anti-Erastian Anglicanism
Openly contemptuous of Agnosticism masquerading as Latitudinarianism or historic big-tent Anglicanism
The big tent with nobody underneath.
From the article …
“The Anglican answer has always made peaceful co-existence the priority. And that can mean compromising one’s principles in the name of a greater good.”
This come as a bit of a shock to the Irish.
“As Europe ripped itself apart during the religious culture wars of the Reformation, the English dreamt up a daring compromise – a church both Protestant and Catholic, a church that would invite Christians of different theological tempers to be alongside each other in the pews. Simply put: it was agreed that praying together and shutting up about religious differences was better than fighting about them.”
The Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral reveals an astonishing ignorance of the history of the Church of England and the nature of the Elizabethan Settlement. I wonder if he has ever read the 39 Articles or the BCP.
No surprise really from the man who has done more than most to promote the cause of The Simple Country Bishop (TM) in England, bringing him to preach in his London church during Lambeth ’08.
It seems to me that this story of Anglicanism has the character of a modern myth. It’s the invention of a tradition: it’s very plausibility and power stemming from its contemporary usefulness.
Giles Fraser, former Vicar of Putney and advocate of all things ‘Inclusive’ has been richly rewarded for his chairmanship of Inclusive Church, for having Bishop Gene Robinson preach at his church contrary to the wishes of the ABC, and his readiness to write and talk to the media on all occasions which present themselves. He is now at St Paul’s Cathedral as Canon in charge of interesting evening talks.
However it is also true that he is not very inclusive of those he disagrees with. As he admits with honesty: “compromise has a limit – especially when the issue is regarded by many as a fundamental question of justice”. Justice, not faith, truth, Christian teaching, or theological integrity. No it is all trumped by a right-on secular agenda.
What is he talking about, why it is women bishops and how those awful neanderthal mysogenistic Anglo-Catholics cannot get their heads round ‘justice’ and get with the program. They keep bringing up theology and the teachings of Christ, and the understanding of the rest of the church over the world, and all through time.
Now I am not saying that we should necessarily not have women bishops, but I do say that we should make provision for those clergy and laity who have fundamental theological problems with it; a provision that actually deals with the issues.
Today may turn out to be rather an important day, as much as it is one of the important days we have regularly. An important day not just for the Church of England whose particular issue this is, but also for the Anglican Communion.
What is so important? Well today the Church of England Revision Committee meets. People are making submissions at the last minute, and my – are they Inclusive!
WATCH, Women and the Church, pushed in a supermarket trolley from Synod ’08 by TEC-in-a-bag ladies, Christina Rees and Canon Marilyn McCord Adams has put in something which is quite hard to read or make sense of, so apoplectic is it at the temerity of the Revision Committee for making any provision whatever for the Anglo-Catholics. It is an A1 rant:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004041.html
and yesterday in more measured tones, but equally hard-line, the Anglo-C’s brother Affirming Catholics put the jack boot in demanding the statutory concessions go and by implication the Anglo-Catholics too:
http://affirmingcatholicism.org.uk/pages/default.asp?sID=0&mode=news&article=45
You can just feel the love can’t you?
Interestingly even on Thinking Anglicans some of the commenters are having trouble stomaching the WATCH spiel. No repentance or mercy for the disgraceful treatment of the Anglo-C’s at Synod ’08 by the chief mischief-makers of WATCH and Affirming Catholicism, notwithstanding the latter’s oh so calm and holy recent statements.
So why does it matter?
1. The Pope – now with his generous pastoral offer, the Anglo-C’s have another option, one they received with deep gratitude at their recent FiF Conference which was humble, gentle and extremely thoughtful and theologically argued in comparison to the theologically light offerings above.
2. GAFCON, or rather FCA – who have served notice on the CofE as well that if proper provision is not made for conservatives in the CofE, they are going to:
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=16521
3. Reform have also issued a statement making it clear that there is no need for those who do not wish to to go to Rome, because FCA is here now, if the Revision Committee do not pass muster:
http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/press/latestpress.php
4. And the Global South Council have stated:
“We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.”
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/weblog/comments/pastoral_exhortation/
And what of the people all this is about, the Anglo-Catholics and others who have been made so unwelcome thanks to the efforts of the ever ‘inclusive’ WATCH and AffCaths? They have been deeply upset; are deeply grateful to the Pope and others, some following the reports of two of the flying bishops [Provincial Episcopal Visitors in the parlance] are taking great interest in the offer from Rome; are taking an interest in FCA; are still taking an interest in what the Revision Committee has and may yet come up with and have also expressed deep thanks for the support they have had personally from the Archbishop of Canterbury who has tried to ensure that they can be kept in.
While you may find the Affirming Catholics esconced in the cathedrals and the evangelicals in the rich suburbs and cities, it is the Anglo-Catholics who you will find at work in they traditional calling, the poor and difficult areas, where following the call of their Master they minister to the least, and in their churches and their ceremonies try to show a glimpse of magic and deep reverence for our Lord […and it has to be said our Lady]
I have tried to understand more about the Anglo-Catholics, it was alien to my churchmanship, but they are some of the most up to date and effective bloggers, and I have wandered onto their sites including Anglican Wanderings and our own Father Ed Tomlinson’s and his friends. To start with I think there was a degree of incomprehension on my part and maybe on theirs, but with a few jokes we got chatting. I think that as a church we will be enormously poorer without them. The theologically vapid and liberal AffCaths are no substitute.
And bringing all the above together, the Revision Committee are between a rock and a hard place. If they go with proper statutory provision for the Anglo-Catholics they might make a difference to so many and give a lead to the rest of the Communion in that the CofE can still deal with things in a Christian manner and keep the balanced mix that we have always had.
Then again if they do not go with the WATCH/AffCath bunch they will hack off the liberal end and no doubt Christina Rees and her friends will have a complete fit of the screaming hab-dabs – toys being thrown all over the back of the Merc.
If the Revision Committee do go with the WATCH bunch then we can expect the Pope’s offer to be increasingly attractive, and the FCA will move in
And for the rest of the Communion, they will see who we have decided to become, and whether we are either capable of giving a lead or for that matter worth following any longer; whether our future lies with the intolerance of TEC or with the Communion.
Prayers for us today would be good, and for the Revision Committee.
Do listen to the FiF conference speeches here, particularly those of Bishop Broadhurst of Fulham, Bishop Nazir-Ali and the PEV’s:
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/na09-10.html
and John Hind, Bishop of Chichester’s transcript here:
http://www.diochi.org.uk/downloads/Bishop of Chichester/Adresses/2009 1023 FiF.pdf
[Hmm…I wonder if this is my longest comment]
Here for anyone interested is a rough transcript [it is not 100% proof read] from the above audio link of the speech of
[b]John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham [/b]
And now may I call upon Bishop John to say the final words
One of the awful things about Forward in Faith is year by year we get older and I was thinking it is fifty years ago and probably a couple of weeks that I fell in love with three different people at the same time – and literally it is one week and one day, no it is one week and one hour, it is from the beginning of one Sunday mass to the end of the next. I fell in love with Jesus Christ, and my wife, and over a much longer period with the Church of England and it is extraordinary you know this man before you is one week and one hour. I went to mass at Christ Church Hendon, which [there’s a retired bishop looking after it now] I went to mass at Christ Church Hendon [Bishop Ladds is looking after that parish]. I knew God was alive one Sunday and the following week the most fantastic young woman walked in and I knew not only was he alive but he rewarded! [laughter] and I have to say to say to you I have passionately loved the Church of England, and rather like St Paul – I could – I have genuinely loved it and I could say to you – I could say to you that it has given me slightly more trouble than my wife or Jesus Christ but um [laughter] but I have loved it dearly. It matters to me, and what’s happened to it, matters to me, and it has nourished me and it has fed me. And rather like St Paul I could say General Synod, I spent twenty five years of my life in that body.
There is a story told isn’t there about the frog and the pot of water. If you put a frog in a pot of water and just slowly warm it up, the frog will stay there until it cooks. If you put it in when its almost boiling – if you put it in when its boiling it’s dead – but if you put it in when it’s almost boiling it will come straight out again. And the question for us is you know what is the point at which the pot becomes intolerable? What is the point at which we can no longer live in the water. Well I would say to you honestly brothers and sisters it wasn’t the ordination of women to the priesthood, it was actually the decision that the Church of England was competent to ordain women to the priesthood, it goes back before the ordination. It is that point at which the pot becomes intolerable. And what did we say about that decision? We said if you if you make that decision and implement it we cannot reside in the pot, it kills us – and I will come back to what they did in a minute.
But sister like you I love part of the Anglican tradition and though many of the churches I go to use part of the liturgy of another communion, I love many of the Anglican prayers and one of my favorites, although not in the position the Book of C Common Prayer puts it in is ‘We do not presume’. What powerful words: ‘We do not presume’. The truth is the tragedy for us is the Church of England has presumed. It has presumed to know better than the tradition about many matters. It has presumed to know better than Jesus Christ about some matters, and it is the presumption of our church in this present period that has caused such pain and anguish to many of us. Oh yes, the ordination of women was the water being turned up, we knew that we were going to be cooked to death and we made it clear. What did we actually say? I mean, I want to take you back because it was alternative Episcopal oversight that we asked for, in other words we need to be out of the pot. That’s actually what we said – out of the pot with our own viable life. And what the General Synod did was, they said, well we can’t let you out of the pot because we all belong in it together but we will push the pot towards the edge of the gas [laughter] and provided you stay this side of the pot, with a few ice-cubes called PEVs [Provincial Episcopal Visitors or flying bishops] [laughter], it’ll be all right.
Well I have to say to you brothers and sisters they have been fourteen jolly good years, it has been warm at our side of the pot. [laughter] We have lived and grown. We have converted people to Jesus Christ, we have produced vocations for ministry. These have not been lousy wasted years [call of hear hear] and don’t let anyone tell you in any way they have been lousy wasted years. But what did we want in 1992 onwards? To be out of the pot. Bishops with jurisdiction, and I’ll go further bishops – its always been there – bishops with jurisdiction and an ecumenical agenda. Now what do those pious words mean? They mean Rome and the Orthodox, and that’s always meant that Rome and the Orthodox. And if you look at consecrated women, our response to the turning up of the heat – again: bishops, jurisdiction, ecumenical agenda because whatever we believe and however much we love our tradition, we have never claimed that Anglicanism is THE Church of Jesus Christ and we have always claimed and believed, that there needs to be catholic unity. And I am very glad that Bishop Michael [Nazir-Ali] said that what’s coming out now is about Anglicans in communion with Rome and not about Anglicans ceasing to be Roman Catholics.
I’ve been asked the question by journalists: ‘have you been to see the Pope?’ And the answer I’ve given is no, though I did some years ago go to see Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger [laughter] and it’s the year I became a bishop, so its fourteen years ago, and he gave me two hours, and I talked with him very honestly and openly about the anguish of the beginnings of Forward in Faith and what we were about. It’s also widely known because it was in the media at the time and people love to talk about these sorts of things, that I was a member of the group that met with Cardinal Hume, and interestingly Cormac Murphy O’Connor and Vincent Nicholls. My they’ve all done well for themselves haven’t they? [laughter] Graham Leonard, Christopher Coleman, Peter Goddard and John Broadhurst, and one of those four Anglicans did not become a Roman Catholic. Why? Why? I will tell you why because I always have believed that this is our problem and not mine. The question that we addressed to Rome in 1994 was an ecclesial question, not a personal one, and therefore a generous response to me did not meet our problem. Whatever else we have got here and now, and I will come onto it in a minute, its certainly ecclesial. I said to Cardinal Ratzinger and he understood, and I’m interested because some of the things I’ve discussed with him, and it was two hours which is..Roman Catholic things… which is amazing, well he gave one hour and fifty minutes which is exaggerating, but I always do a bit [laughter] but, they’ve bounced back in things he’s said. We actually in 1994 asked a catholic question which is how are we reconciled to the Holy See? And what we got in 1994 was a very nice polite and loving Protestant answer. I’ll be nice to you.
The catholic question has remained there and I’m very grateful to the TAC, I mean that Archbishop John would say well its not an enormous body, they’ve asked the question on behalf of all of us, and thank God they have, because the answer we’ve got this time round is ecclesial. Now Bishop Michael’s quite clearly spelt out, there are ecclesial problems around the bishops and all that, but you know this is an ecclesial answer to the ecclesial problem: how do we remain Anglicans yet pursue our Christian life? If women priests have made the position intolerable, but you know they’ve moved the pot to the edge of the gas and let us live, they are now saying to us: we are going to turn the heat up. We are going to turn the heat up jolly hot, in fact it’s going to boil. And we said if you’re going to consecrate women we need alternative jurisdiction. What troubles me and I have to say to my General Synod friends and I thank God they’re fighting and I’ve been in those battles for years, but what is quite apparent is the determination that come what may, they are going to keep us in the pot. In other words there is not going to be any jurisdiction external to their control, and in the end I personally find it hard to see how catholic Anglicanism – can live without – can live in that situation. It’s a problem…it’s a problem.
Now the game is not over for the Church of England, but all the signs to me are that yes the water is going to boil. Parallel jurisdictions have always been what we are about, that’s not a new thing. Consecrated women was not a new theme for Forward in Faith, it’s a repetition of Alternative Episcopal Oversight, of where we were at the beginning. We have never changed our ground, we have never changed our cries, we have never changed our theological stance. That seems to me to be crucial.
cont.
Forward in Faith has a logo: Forward in Faith with a vision of unity and truth. And those two go together you know, and it is not simply the unity between us and the unity between us and orthodox Anglicans – it is the unity of the church of Jesus Christ, it is the unity which Christ himself prayed for. And if the heat’s going up, well just think about it, women priests intolerable or rather the decision that we can do it in the first place; women bishops intolerable? Consecration of Gene Robinson in America? I think that’s intolerable.. persecution of orthodox Anglicans in America? Intolerable…Ed McBurney, my friend being deposed on the day of his son’s funeral? I think that’s intolerable…Keith Ackerman losing his health insurance? – intolerable…endless court cases against orthodox Christians in America? Intolerable, and please note the Episcopal Church, that honored member of the Anglican Communion [or is it], has cut all its budget for mission work and yet increased it for litigation. And lest you think, oh my oh my he’s going on about America and its nothing to do with us, that’s poor old Bishop Jack’s [Iker] problem, no provision in Wales for a new bishop – totally and utterly intolerable [cries of hear hear and loud sustained applause].
And let me say to you if there is no provision in Wales which once was part of the Church of England [and if Siff’s around worried about being part of the Church of England, the Church in Wales were glad to be not any longer] but you know if the situation in Wales is such that there is no provision for us, the game is genuinely up…No provision in Scotland. If you wish to understand how nice liberal Christians behave, look at the Church in Wales, because when Rowan was there, Archbishop Rowan is a good and honorable and caring man and I don’t envy him being in this present situation, when he was Archbishop we were cared for – totally and utterly intolerable. The heat is being turned up and anybody who doesn’t perceive that is surely in the end blinkered.
I was asked yesterday about the Federation of Confessing Anglicans and joint action. Well I have to say to you I am utterly committed to joint action with Evangelicals and others, for the defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but that’s the battle that’s going on. And if you ask an interesting question you know, several of the evangelical leaders of Anglican groups have been to Rome to talk with the Holy Father about common cause for the Gospel. You know this is a struggle for the truths of the Gospel, and I’ve already said yes I did talk to the Pope in his previous incarnation.
I want to say something about ARCIC. There was a great joy for me on the General Synod, and I tell you it wasn’t being one of the chairmen, sister, I did enjoy that for about eight years. The greatest joy for me on the General Synod was the fact that in one day I was in Canterbury Cathedral when the Pope came and then he kindly enough came to my parish in Wembley, isn’t that nice, he drove through my parish and waved to me [laughter – note the Pope attended a huge event in Wembley Stadium]. I have to say to you those days, and look at the photos of him and Runcie walking through the streets of Canterbury, those days were heady, because we all believed, and Bishop Michael has attested to that today, we believed there was a real possibility of reconciliation between us and Rome. And you know the tragedy for all of us is that we’ve witnessed bit by bit, piece by piece that vision being broken up, that vision being crumbled and destroyed, and Bishop Michael, quite honestly told you a minute ago the hope now is for dialogue and not for corporate unity. Well I’m not into an endless courtship with anybody. You know if my wife and I met fifty years ago it was, and we were still talking about getting married it would be a real waste of time wouldn’t it? [laughter] I mean honestly my brothers and sisters the call is for unity in truth and in love. Jeffrey gave away something which he really shouldn’t have done but I did write the decoration on the magisterium for quite a long time. There was a time when I would have considered myself quite anti-Papal. I would have stood before you forty years ago, even when I went on General Synod yes thirty-five years ago as an orthodox, non-Papal Anglican believing very strongly in non-Papal Catholicism. I have to say I don’t believe there’s any such creature, and if the General Synod did anything to me, it changed my view on the universality of the Church.
Then look at the Statement. If I had talked to the Pope recently I would have told him that Forward in Faith had a slight problem because for the last three years we haven’t had the media here, and I must say it’s done us a good job hasn’t it? [laughter] I mean talk about – that Statement is mind-blowingly generous. It is earth-shatteringly different from anything that’s ever come before. It’s not without its problems, not without its difficulties, not even without its questions, but its saying to you and me, that Rome thinks differently about us than we’ve thought it has thought for the last forty years. In fact it’s speaking to us in the way that my conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger all those years hope it would. It is mind-blowingly different, although not without its questions. It is generous, it respects our integrity, and I have to say to you, that what saddens me is that at a time when we and our members in General Synod hoped that the Church of England might really hear our concerns, and I think that those on the working party certainly have heard our concerns, but the General Synod and the bishops of the Church of England might hear our concerns, and they haven’t, the Bishop of Rome has. And I have to say that must make you stop, think and be concerned.
There was somebody at the back who spoke about Forward in Faith, about Society of the Holy Cross and all that and he wanted a new order, well I have been a member of the Society of the Holy Cross since 1968, and I think I’m number eleven – it’s dead man’s shoes you know – there are over a thousand members and – [calls out] what am I? – I’m number eleven I think, something like that …I’m not in death row yet. [laughter]. You know one of the frustrating things about – I was told when I joined SSC by Archdeacon George Timms: “you’ll never get on in the Church of England now.†[laughter] He was right. [laughter] Interestingly, there are a lot of bishops in SSC now, there weren’t. One of the awful things about SSC, is in the early days various masters used to go to Rome for conversations with the Holy Office or the Secretary for Unity or the Pope even and they would come back with “I’ve had conversations with ..dom, dom, dom..can’t tell you what’s happened ..dum dum dumâ€â€¦usual old nonsense of people: “I’ve been to Rome and I’ve talked to so-and-so – and Anglican catholics have indulged in this for years – for years and years and years. If I listed all the people who’ve been to Rome and told me they’ve talked to this that and the other person, well I’d need an Encyclopaedia Britannica. But there have been some very substantial things about visits to the Holy See. I know that from this country, several diocesans, I was going to say many but I don’t want to name the number have been to Rome and talked about the dilemma of Anglicanism. I know the PEV’s have – two of them have publicly said that they have here yesterday. I know that several years ago the Province of New Guinea went lock stock and barrel and asked the question: ‘how can we become in communion with the Holy See? And the interesting thing is that Rome couldn’t then answer that question. I know that Central Africa, when Mercer was a bishop there did exactly the same. And there is a sense in which the sadness of …is that Rome’s missed all sorts of opportunities.
I want to finish. I will be asked on the television, on the radio tomorrow morning am I going? [nervous laughter] No I’m not. The truth is I am staying to see whether we can sort this mess out once and for all together, because the one thing I have always been committed to is that we are in this together. And my one argument with bishop, is Bishop Andrew still here? No he’s not, which is a shame because I’ve got a good joke at his expense [laughter]. But you know my one argument with Bishop Andrew’s [Burnham] talk about a ‘caravan’ is that a caravan goes at the speed of the slowest camel [laughter] and Andrew has a vision of the caravan going off and leaving the slow camels behind. And I think, I have to say, we really have to try and respond to this together prayerfully, carefully, read it, digest it, see how it evolves and then say: is this genuinely something that can at long last meet our dreams, or is it the stuff of nightmares? Can we honestly say this meets our dreams? Whatever else we do I think we have to be quite clear we are immensely grateful, we are encouraged, we are slightly perplexed, but this is a marvelous occasion for us. We need to see who we are, what we are, where we are going and what the future holds.
cont.
The last thing to say just to think on this – the great danger for us is to think of this as a Church of England question. The Archbishop of Canterbury is involved, not because it is a Church of England question but because it is an Anglican Communion question. This is a world thing, and we English can be terribly arrogant you know: well this is the world. [laughter] No it isn’t, you know, this is a world approach to which we will be part. The only commitment I will do my very best to make sure that for those who can’t follow it, the best we can do in the Church of England is achieved, and my very best to hold us all together to find under God a way forward. I was beginning to think I was being a bit boring being Chairman of Forward in Faith, but suddenly it’s all becoming rather exciting again. So thank you. [Applause]
Rough transcript of the speech of
Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali
I am very conscious having listened to the last 60 minutes or so of your discussion that I have come at a very momentous time in your own story and indeed in the story of the church. I think we must acknowledge that and I will come to the specific questions mentioned already in a moment, but I am conscious of the solemnity of the occasion and I want to assure you of that. I wanted to begin by saying that evangelicals and catholics, if they are people of anything are people of revelation. That is to say they believe that God has spoken, that God has come, and that God has sent. That is what Christian revelation is all about. The incarnation, the coming of God, the cross, His reconciling love for us shown so clearly and the resurrection which gives us hope and a sense of our destiny, the destiny of humanity and indeed of the world itself. So when we say that we are people of revelation, we do not mean that this is something arbitrary, that it has nothing to do with how things are, with the way that human beings have been made for example, or the way in which the world is. And revelation should properly be thought of in two ways: one as completing nature, so what we know already of the natural world, revelation illuminates that for us; but then also and you’d expect me to say this as correcting what has gone wrong I nature and in human society.
Now if revelation has everything to do with who we are, how we are, how the world is, then of course it will have a cutting edge not only in terms of belief but also in terms of behaviour and we have seen this of course quite sharply and clearly in developments which have taken place in the Anglican Communion in the last few years – I don’t want to go over them once again. But the point I was wanting to make was that this revelation is actually shared in the church, passed on and learned in terms of the apostolic tradition. That is how we make sense of revelation, how we live revelation, how it is shared, and of course mission has been mentioned – that’s the compulsory word these days [laughter] – it is isn’t it? But yes certainly, even in our missionary work, revelation is conveyed in terms of the apostolic tradition which the church lives and indeed preaches. By apostolic tradition of course I don’t mean the different traditions we may have got used to in East or West, North or South. Evangelicals quite often use the term apostolic teaching, and I think the two terms are nearly synonymous – it is how the church lives and what the church teaches. As this apostolic tradition is shared, as this apostolic teaching is transmitted of course from time to time in particular cultures with particular people, elements are noticed and revived and renewed in that tradition which perhaps had not been noticed so much before – perhaps had been neglected or indeed forgotten altogether. That is true.
It is also true that this tradition, this apostolic tradition, this apostolic teaching has to engage with new knowledge. I think that we ought to be upfront about this from the very beginning, that those of us who claim to be orthodox in faith and practice are not against new knowledge – we haven’t got our heads in the sand, and we must affirm an authentic way of engaging with new knowledge. I know that Bishop John [Broadhurst] in his address referred to Cardinal Newman’s doctrine of development, and it is certainly the case that a principled way of engaging with new knowledge has to be found for the church because of the sort of world in which we live. We now know so much more about the beginnings of human life, about its end, about things like mental capacity, and it would be quite wrong for us to give Christian answers to sharp moral questions, without taking on board what science or other disciplines are discovering.
But this engagement as I say must be principled. It is not just capitulation to whatever is new just for the sake of it. And the principles, of course, we all know about, they have to do as Newman said with a conservative action on the past – now that means that the past is valuable for us as we engage with the present and the future. We cannot just be discarded, as someone was arguing on a blog just the other day, about developments just this week. The past, what the church has taught and thought has to be brought to bear on the questions that we are facing today. We are not inventing as it were de novo our responses, but we have to draw on the richness of this apostolic tradition.
Secondly the Gospel has to be conserved. That is to say we cannot abandon the good news of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, simply to accommodate to our circumstances. Perhaps one of the endemic weaknesses in Anglicanism has been a tendency either to capitulate to culture or to be captivated by it, made captive by it, and we have to be aware of it. So when we are engaging with new knowledge there has to be conservation of the past, conserving the Gospel itself, a continuity of principles – that is to say how we addressed questions in the past is the way in which we address them today, not some entirely new-fangled way of doing it. And then there has to be, as Newman said anticipation of the future. So not only do we receive and pass on and receive again the apostolic tradition, the apostolic teaching, not only do we discover things new and old in it, as Jesus himself told us we would, but also we engage in a principled way with what is new. However when a question arises as to whether something is part of this apostolic tradition or of apostolic teaching, how is that question to be answered? I mean in a way, that is our problem in the Anglican Communion at the moment. And in this I would suggest that the Anglican tradition tells us that the question is answered by saying that when there is a doubt about something being part of apostolic teaching then that question is settled by an appeal to sacred scripture. Sacred scripture is not something other than the stream of apostolic tradition or apostolic teaching, it is part of that stream but it is the normative part, the normative part [emphasis]. This is how we decide what is apostolic tradition or not, and I am very glad to be able to say that the Roman Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council has gladly affirmed this uniqueness and normativeness of sacred scripture in Dei Verbum, and certainly in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Et Unum Sint.
So we have affirmed for ourselves that we are people of revelation, of the apostolic teaching and of scripture as the norm of how the church lives and what the church teaches. And so if someone says: how is the church made? what makes the church? – I mean that this is a question that is in your minds for all sorts of reasons at this time – we can say that the church is made by the receiving and the passing on and the receiving again of the apostolic teaching. But the church is also made by the ministry that God has given the church. Both Archbishop Michael Ramsey and John Webster from very different points of view, one catholic the other evangelical, have spoken of what I have called the self-organising power of the Gospel, and I also know that Bishop John [Hind, Bishop of Chichester] also touched on this in his speech, that the church is not an accident of people who have responded to the Good News about Jesus Christ any old how in any old way with any old shape, although sometimes looking at church people it seems that way [laughter]. The church has been given its shape, its form by the nature of the Good News itself, [emphasis] by the nature of the Good News itself of the Gospel and within this evangelical shape, if you see what I mean, there are of course, everyone, all the baptized are called to discipleship. I don’t want to get this afternoon into a debate about Ephesians 4, but with all our call to discipleship let us agree at least some are called to ministry, and there is a variety of ministries in the church, mentioned in the New Testament and recognized by the church throughout its history. However, and I say this for a purpose, Anglicans have always held, the Ordinal teaches us quite clearly that the ministry of bishops, priests and deacons dates from the time of the apostles and is necessary for the being and the making of the church [I mean that should not news to you here but I will say later why I want to underline this point. Any arrangements that are made by anyone regarding the church must have this in view. This is not something we can change because it is part of the evangelical shaping of the church; the self-organising power of the Gospel in its ecclesial aspect, if you like.
cont.
And then of course the church is made by the sacraments, just as the church is made by the word of God and by the work of God and by the work of Christian minister, deacons, priests, bishops and others who collaborate with them, the church is also made by the sacraments. I know that sacramental assurance is something that is of great concern to you and has already been mentioned this afternoon, and yes the Anglican formularies teach quite clearly that the sacraments are means of Grace. And who are we to prevent those channels of Grace being used by people, being available for people – I mean this must be an important question when we ask about any kind of arrangement.
Now having said all of that if these are essential for the being of the church, the making of the church, what else can we say? I think we must insist, must we not, on a proper doctrine of Synodality. And I use that word Synodality deliberately – by that I do not mean the way in which General Synod works [laughter]. What I mean by that is that wherever there is a church worth the name it is important for Christian people and their leaders to gather. For the leaders to gather – wherever there are bishops, there must be meetings of bishops, that is one of the justifications for the Lambeth Conference if you are hard put to find any others [laughter and applause] – and there is also the cricket match of course [laughter] which didn’t happen this time because I wasn’t there. We must make sure that it is possible for people to gather in a way that recognizes the special responsibility that those who have responsibility for teaching for example and also the importance of being able to consult with lay people with clergy and with those qualified in theological disciplines. So a proper doctrine of synodality is important for the church, the ability to make decisions together. One of the things where the Anglican Communion has been found wanting is that we have had no ways of deciding together on important issues that are important not just for one part of the church, but for everyone. So what affects everyone should be decided by everyone. But when the question actually has arisen we have said well everyone we have said well we don’t have any such organs, and that ecclesial deficit is something worth thinking about.
And then thirdly the exercise of proper discipline in the church. Because a church without discipline where everyone can believe whatever they like and do whatever they like will not for very long be a church worth the name [loud and prolonged applause]. Well thank you, it doesn’t give me any pleasure to say these things, but they are necessary to say.
Now in the light of what I have said, and I know there is going to be push-back later on, how do we evaluate the offer made by the Holy See this week? I certainly welcome it very much because as with Pope Paul VI, Pope Benedict has also in the making of this offer recognized the legitimate prestige and patrimony of the Anglican Communion. That is to say once again, and this time in very different circumstances, the Roman Catholic Church has been able to say as it said at the Second Vatican Council that there are genuinely catholic aspects of faith and order in the Anglican Communion. I think that is quite an optimistic thing for them to say about the Anglican Communion at this time. Isn’t it? [laughter] But they have said it and I do welcome it. I do also welcome the fact that for the first time in relating to an ecclesial body of Western origin the Roman Catholic Church is prepared to make the sorts of provisions that it is prepared to make. Of course many of these provisions have been made for uniate bodies in the East, but never before in this way in the West, and so it may be indeed a harbinger of things to come and all of that has certainly to be welcomed.
I am unclear about some things and I suspect that you are also. I am not sure what is the basis of faith which is being asked for here in terms of Anglicans responding to the offer. I mean will people have to respond to everything that has happened since the 16th Century or perhaps even the 11th? Pope Benedict, when he wasn’t that you know when he went under the other name – um [laughter] – said about the Orthodox that they would not be required to believe anything that the church had not believed in the first millennium – now does that apply to Anglicans? If it does of course that changes the picture to a very great extent and I noted very carefully what was being said about Anglican relations with the Orthodox. Or are we going to be asked to endorse everything that has happened dogmatically, morally, in all sorts of other ways in the Roman Catholic Church for reasons that may have been good for the Roman Catholic Church itself but which may be questions for Anglicans and others who want to come into fuller communion with that church.
Secondly are the chief pastors and the pastors to be received with their flock as chief pastors and pastors? I mean that’s the question. I’d rather not look like a bishop and be a bishop than to look like a bishop and not be a bishop [laughter and applause]. You see what I am saying? [loud applause] I think it would be quite astonishingly un-catholic of the Roman Catholic Church to offer an arrangement for oversight which doesn’t have any bishops on the face of it. How could it possibly be of catholic order in the sense that we have all received it? I think this must be a question that has to be examined and if people are to be received with ecclesial integrity it has been said repeatedly here that this is not about individual submission, this is about corporate reception. Well, you will see if it is really corporate then people have to be received with their pastors and their chief pastors. What will happen in the future is another matter. But what happens in the future then? What are the provisions for continuing Episcopal oversight within these ordinariates? That is not clear to me at all. If the ordinary need not be a bishop where will this Episcopal oversight come from? Will it come from the Latin-rite bishops in which case we may as well sort of give up now and say the Latin rite is good enough, because without adequate Episcopal oversight, you know this from the last seventeen years, people will lose any identity with which they begin.
Thirdly it is, as has been said, a major concession that within the ordinariates it appears that married men will continue to be ordained. But what will be the objective criteria for deciding who can be and who cannot be? Because it will be it seems from what it being said on a one by one individual basis by way of dispensation perhaps and what I would say is that the objective criteria must include the Anglican experience itself of married clergy and of its spiritual fruitfulness. I was at a synod of bishops as the Anglican participant in Rome some years ago and I was quite astonished to hear some of the Eastern rite bishops say in the presence of the Holy Father that they had said to married men coming for ordination look we’ve got enough married priests, go away and be a banker or something [laughter] – we want celibate clergy. And I said to some of these bishops in coffee breaks and things – look celibate clergy have a particular role to fulfill which the church should value very much, but married clergy and their families have another role which is equally valuable and from our Anglican experience we know this of course. So in the criteria which are used for determining as to which married men can be ordained will the Anglican experience be a criterion or not?
Thirdly the integrity of theological education, it is not enough to say well people can go to existing seminaries and then in the corner somewhere someone can tell them how Anglicans do things. That’s not taking it seriously enough. Here are questions about theological method, about biblical and patristic studies, about moral theology and the particular approaches and traditions that Anglicans have in doing moral theology – I mean all of these things have to be taken into account in the formation of priests for the future of this entity, whatever it may be.
So there are quite serious questions I mean not having seen the detail, like the rest of you it is difficult to see what provision is to be made but as I consider the discussion, those are the questions that arise in my mind.
cont.
Now finally, what about provision in the Church of England? It appears that many people here want to take Pope Benedict’s offer and respond to it, whatever it’s nature, but there are others here clearly who want provision to be made in the Church of England. I think that what I’m praying for, and I mean this is a prayer, is that there will be a single provision for orthodox Anglicans, catholic or evangelical, and whatever the issues may be on the spectrum. It may be that within the single provision there can be streams for catholics and evangelicals in terms of oversight, in terms of how people are looked after and there can also be collaboration of course. But one of the main objections to specific provision is well how many people do you provide for and how many provisions do you make, and on how many issues? I think this is a question that has some force. The Church of England cannot continue to make provision for people on this issue or that because they are catholic or evangelical or charismatic or whatever so it would be good I think for orthodox Anglicans to grow together for the Church of England if there were to be a single provision for people who were orthodox traditionally-minded, however you want to put it and then for there to be arrangements within that single provision for people to be looked after in the ways they refer. Apart from anything else this will also have a certain sort of ecclesial thickness if you like, so that you are, people look in such and arrangement less like a sect and more like a church. And the greater ecclesial thickness there is of course in this way the better the chances of such a body being able itself being able to engage in dialogue with ecumenical partners because whatever happens that ecumenical dialogue will not end. I have been a member of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission for I think it is 18 years now and I want to see the fruits of ARCIC. In what has been said so far about ARCIC it sounds a bit like two cheers, and that may be right – maybe that is all that ARCIC deserves. I think it may deserve a little bit more and I hope that those who stay, those orthodox Anglicans who stay in the Church of England and in the Anglican Communion will be able to continue dialogue with our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of what ARCIC has done already. So Mr. Chairman thank you very much indeed for your hospitality, I am very grateful for this opportunity to be able to say a few things this afternoon and I look forward to the response.
Bishop Michael before you come down could you just say a little word about realignment in the Communion and what is happening in America and elsewhere?
Well Bishop Jack Iker is here, I saw him, I am sure he will be willing to say something. Far be it for me..
He already has, you are on the platform..[laughter]
Yes well, he will probably contradict what I say but yes I have just come back from my first experience of the Anglican Church in North America and I am hugely encouraged obviously by the developments that have taken place there. But again it seems to me that what is important in North America is that the orthodox stay together. The Anglican Church in North America is a fragile entity it seems to me still because of the different streams of orthodox Anglicans within it and I hope that they can find a way both of ministering to the different streams in their integrity and of maintaining the unity of the church. I think that is the challenge but that may also be a challenge for us if we go the way of a single provision [loud applause].
Rough transcript of the speech of:
Bishop Iker
Good afternoon everyone and thank you very much for this opportunity to be a part of your assembly and to say a few words to you. I am going to be brief in my comments.
First when this was announced in Fort Worth on Tuesday, it did not come as a complete surprise, because we knew something was in the works and we were told that there would be an announcement of some sort before the end of the year. But in many ways it surpassed our expectations about what might be offered. So it was received enthusiastically and joyfully in the diocese of Fort Worth, but not without some reservations.
Unfortunately the day after it was announced I boarded the plane to come over here so I haven’t had a lot of time to speak with my clergy about it, but these are my initial impressions.
The Diocese of Fort Worth is an Anglo-Catholic diocese predominantly, and most of our clergy would enthusiastically welcome what the Vatican has announced, but the laity less so. I would say that, at this point a minority of our clergy would avail themselves of the provision that has been announced, but even less of the laity, because many of our laity would take the position that if they wanted to become Roman Catholics they would have already done it. And in fact many of our laity came to us from the Roman Catholic Church, oftentimes in order to marry after a divorce, and so they wouldn’t be interested in going back to a church where they would be excommunicated.
A number of our priests would be concerned about being re-ordained, that they see themselves as already catholic priests, they would very much want to have full communion with the See of Peter, but would wish a reunion, and a restoration of corporate communion between the two churches, rather than being absorbed into the Roman Catholic Church. So that for many of our clergy they say I am already a catholic, and I don’t feel I need to convert to the Roman Catholic Church in order to exercise my priestly ministry.
There would be concerns in many of our catholic clergy about adhering to the faith and order of the undivided church in light of the papal additions to the catholic faith that would cause them to draw back: papal infallibility; immaculate conception, mandatory celibacy and so on.
The huge part of our picture in the diocese of Fort Worth right now in dealing with this is, you know, is we are right in the midst of litigation. And the Episcopal Church has sued us, and we are trying to defend ourselves. And the basis of our claim is that we haven’t gone anywhere, we haven’t left anything, we haven’t abandoned anything, that we are still the same Christians that we have always been. Our faith and practice is the same, and it is the Episcopal Church that has attempted to change the faith and practice that we have received. So it is very difficult for us to make a case that our identity is unchanged before the Court, at the same time we appear to be flirting with going to Rome. So pray for us and please understand that particular context.
The real question it seems to me is: what is the future for Anglo-Catholics? Is there a future for Anglo-Catholics which is non-Papal? I believe there is. I do not believe there is a future for Anglo-Catholics in the Episcopal Church in the United States. There is no remaining catholic bishop in the Episcopal Church. It is becoming more and more a schismatic and heretical church. I hope you understand that.
For now we have decided that there can be a future for Anglo-Catholics through the Anglican Church in North America, and we are participating in the formation of that province which has another sort of challenge before it and we certainly ask for your prayers for that as well. Thank you very much.
Rough Transcript of the speech of:
[b]Bishop Bill Ilgenfritz[/b]
Well I begin by saying I am certainly not surprised that it was Benedict XVI who took this unprecedented step. You may remember that as Cardinal Ratzinger, it was he who provided overwhelming support for the formation of the Anglican Communion Network which has now become the Anglican Church in North America. He has always demonstrated a great deal of understanding of orthodox Anglicans and so I am grateful for the step that he has taken. At the same time, I do not want to repeat too much of what has already been said but I haven’t read the details of the Apostolic Constitution and so I really can’t comment about that. But I do observe that ACNA for us in the States is the way forward for this time. Our constituency: some look to continuing relationship with Canterbury, others to Rome, and others to Constantinople, so ACNA seems to be the way forward for us at this time. The parish I serve as Rector, as Bishop Jack has alluded to, my own parish is comprised mainly of former Roman Catholics, who are not anxious to return, and that is just the truth of the matter. Since August 22nd of this year, of the date of my consecration as Bishop of the missionary diocese of All Saints, we started with no parishes and we now have thirteen. I do not expect that any of them will avail themselves of this Roman option, but there are some churches which are still in the Episcopal Church, some Forward in Faith parishes who may decide to do that.
I do want to underline that, for Forward in Faith North America, we will continue to work toward a fully orthodox province within North America. ACNA is not complete for Anglo-Catholics, we understand that, but our integrity is there protected and honored, our orders are sealed, and no one is going to hold us captive. There are no women bishops. There is canonical protection for our integrity, there is no encumbrance of our property or our finances, and finally if all else fails, there is a painless way out.
I would conclude with this, and this is very personal and relates to me alone. I am at least an 8th generation Anglican. I was born an Anglican, I am an Anglican by birth, I am a catholic by conviction [you don’t have time to listen to that story] but God-willing, I shall also die an Anglican. Thank you
And then there is the, um, speech of our very own Rugby Playing Priest:
[b]Fr Ed Tomlinson[/b]
Thank you Ed Tomlinson from Tunbridge Wells. I’ve been dwelling last night on Bishop John’s gorgeous analogy of Vaticana and Synodica. They are on my website today – I found a lovely photograph. I think we are fooling ourselves about the choices going on. I went home depressed yesterday. The truth is, and you want leadership lets find some hemma, that Vaticana is the greatest hottie in town [laughter]. She is morally principled, she has absolutely got everything you would hope to look for, and what is more she has not only invited us out on a date, but she’s promised us that that date can develop into something beautiful.
Now before you ever go on your first date of course you have butterflies, you’re scared – what should I wear? What will she wear? Will she kiss me? Will she hate me? We are scared brothers and sisters and yet it is the best offer we’ve ever had – because Synodica is a slapper [much laughter and applause] and let’s be honest. [laughter] – let’s be honest, she may well try and keep us in by offering us dates, but she is already dating other people. The reason, the reason why there’s no room in the bed for us any more is because she has kicked us out and repeatedly kicked us out because the truth is that she no longer loves us. Our future is Vaticana. We ought to be rejoicing even though we do need to see how that first date goes and we need all the information, nonetheless this is a day of rejoicing. We pray to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit has responded. If you turn down your date, don’t be surprised if you end up with something rather ugly. Thank you. [Applause]
Wow. Thanks for all that, Pageantmaster. I’m overwhelmed.
Some Rabbit food, Brer?
There’s more, but I ran out of steam, and its on the audio. I thought it was important that we heard these voices too, since they are the part of our church who we are in danger of losing, and we may not realise what we have lost until they have gone.
Don’t get indigestion now.
Pageantmaster, thank you. I’m still digesting.
Amazing work Pageantmaster. Thanks!
This is wonderful reading.
Like others above, I’m very grateful to Pageantmaster for all those very illuminating transcripts from the FiF annual conference. And I also appreciate his own assessment of the current dilemma/quagmire in the CoE in his informative #8. Well done, Pageantmaster! Superb work.
David Handy+
I loved the reference to Vaticana, the “greatest hottie in town”. What’s a slapper?
Pageantmaster: not all Anglo-Catholics are anti-women’s ordination, and nor should you dismiss those of us in favour of it as lightweight. I think the question you should be examining is why some Anglo-Catholics have chosen this suicidal route. I worked in an English inner-city Anglo-Catholic anti-women resolution-passing parish, and I can tell you that the place was dying on its feet, as are most of the others who have taken the same step. Newcomers to the parish – young urbanites – sometimes came along and loved all the ritual and smoke, but simply could not understand why the vicar shouldn’t be allowed to be a woman. Not one person, in my experience, ever moved towards adopting the “conservative” position on WO, whereas I’ve known many (myself included) who have moved the other way. I conclude that there is no future in the anti-WO position, and little point in making such a big deal of it.
The odd thing, of course, is that ordinary Roman Catholics in England are all in favour of women’s ordination – it’s only the converts who are not.
#25: Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but (IIRC) haven’t you taken the same view of same-sex relationships as well?
Fr Mark, sorry but your explanation is just not fair. my parish has more than doubled in size over the last few years with young families and professionals who are drawn to the fact we do not compromise on the Gospel, a fact repeated in countless evangelical and anglocatholic parishes throughout Britain. In my experience liberal parishes are the ones struggling and little wonder, what use is salt that has lost it’s saltiness? or a church that merely mirrors the views of society?
Furthermore I note that my few liberals in my pews only attend monthly wheras my orthodox are always here, the faith is lived not observed. You might also ponder the fact of the American roman seminary that started praying for vocations and returned to an uncompromising orthodoxy, where it’s liberal counterparts attract nobody it has a waiting list of two years…
rugbyplayingpriest: “my parish has more than doubled in size over the last few years.., a fact repeated in countless … anglocatholic parishes throughout Britain.”
As regards Anglo-Catholic parishes other than your own, absolutely not. I can think of many resolution-passing churches which I know very well where the numbers are now so low that they are losing their full-time priest to have part-time replacements. This is common knowledge amongst Anglo-Catholic clergy (and ordinands, for whom it is increasingly difficult to find parishes in which to serve their title), so I don’t know why you would claim otherwise.
The point, I suppose, is that being conservative in religion does not necessarily result in increasing numbers. This is an important point, and one that needs to be understood by those on the shrill ecclesiastical right at the moment. I speak from having spent decades of my life hanging around the most conservative churches going.
I don’t know where you are, but throughout Europe, conservative churches are losing out even faster than more liberal ones – the biggest decline is in the Roman Catholic Church Europe-wide at the moment, which certainly is not a liberal institution.
This “conservative = might = right” canard is so obviously false that one wonders why some people have to keep repeating it. All major denominations are in serious decline in Europe, and evidently what is happening in terms of the wholesale giving up of religious practice across the continent is a lot more complex than one would believe, to listen to the relentless jeremiads from those inside churches who cannot cope with the world as it is, and therefore use churches to hide away unchallenged in.
Nice – feeling the love between brothers.
The truth is that, more or less, no mainline European christian denomination showed consistent growth for a prolonged period in the twentieth century (perhaps the RCs in Italy after disestablishment being the closest). Neither liberalizing nor conservatism has, in general, prevented this sea change – though both have in different places and over shorter periods slowed or temporarily halted the rate the change (eg the growth of house churches in the 80s, followed by decline in the 90s; the holding steady of conservative evangelicalism in the COE of the 1990s, the growth of cathedrals in the 2000s etc.).
There’s little long term evidence that holding ethical views that are more similar to the mean of society stems this change nor that contesting or trying to subvert has done such.
One suspects that both the broadly modernist tradition represented by the AffCaths and a more conservative tradition will have some place in the future. One suspects too, that both will turn out to be very much minority communities in the de-Christianized European future.
driver8: yes, I think your concluding paragraph is accurate.
The problem with the narrowing of the pool of practising Christians in Europe, though, is that, proportionately, there can seem to be more socially ill-adjusted nutters hanging around churches than sane people sometimes. This is fine, as long as they don’t try to wield any influence, but disastrous when they do, as we see from how maladroit the C of E has made itself appear over the gay & women bishops issues. Positions which are obviously quite ridiculous to any intelligent outsider are mouthed as if perfectly logical by senior churchmen, with predictably alienating results vis-a-vis the rest of the populace.
PS I had in mind such delights as the recently-retired Bishop of Carlisle’s belief that bad weather was caused by tolerance towards gay people, much (and quite rightly) mocked throughout the wider society.
I used to wonder why some of the people I met in church didn’t always behave in a particularly Christian way; then it hit me that much like the people you meet in a hospital aren’t always well, so the people you meet in church aren’t always good. But church is where we sinners collect, have our sins forgiven by God’s good grace and hope for amendment of life through the Holy Spirit.
We also all have our own hobby-horses, and just because we don’t follow the ways of the secular world but require theological proof before changing what has always been the doctrine of the church doesn’t mean that the church is wrong. The prophets were still speaking out and no doubt thought ridiculous by society as the Asherah poles were going up.
As for whether God manifests his displeasure in response to our actions, well the Old Testament is chock full of examples of this happening, so who is to say that Bishop Dow, bless him, was wrong, although I did raise an eyebrow and a smile. I wish him and his wife a happy retirement.
But tell me Fr Mark, if you are capable of talking about anything other than gay rights, what do you think about making generous provision for your former Anglo-Catholic friends in the Church of England in the legislation for women bishops?
driver8,
Thanks for your #29, which is a typically thoughtful and balanced comment, like many of yours. If I might make a perhaps impertinent or even somewhat rude response (by an American who has never been to Europe), I think the European churches only have themselves to blame. If Europe (including the British Isles) is going to be re-evangelized and re-discipled for Christ, I think it’s going to take a radically different approach than any of the old established churches have been willing to take so far. And by that I mean chucking the whole obsolete Christendom or state church approach, and adopting an aggressively counter-cultural approach. It worked in the pre-Constantinian era. And it can work again, or so I believe, in our scary new post-Constantinian era.
Maybe I’m wrong, driver8, but your #29 seemed to imply that the secularization and de-Christianization of Eurpoe was an unstoppable and inevitable social process. That all kinds of attempts had been made to stop it without success, and the future was bleak for Christians in Europe. I vigorously disagree. I don’t think a serious post-Christendom approach has yet been tried by any of the old state churches.
(Sorry, Pageantmaster, no offense intended toward you or the CoE, but I’m sure you’ve heard me vent my provocative views as an “enthusiast” on that topic before.)
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of post-Christendom style Anglicanism
#34 Rev Handy
No offense taken at all. I would say that in my time in the church I have watched a number of ‘new’ churches start off, meeting in homes, warehouses, theatres. They grow, sometimes exponentially, often with a charismatic leader or leaders. They have been very snooty and off-hand with us in the CofE. Then they take on big premises, the leader moves or the leaders fall out – and poof! they’re gone. If they are lucky a remnant remains, until the next fad church arises. Meanwhile we trudge on, week by week with our liturgy and our bible groups and our unexciting but reliable parishioners who literally have to be carried out.
The CofE does have the capacity to grow massively; it has all the experience and infrastructure, but we do have internal problems and a number of rather selfish interests as this thread demonstrates. Part of being in a family is doing what is best for the family, not preferring one noisy child over the others, and not treating one as the runt of the litter.
You would take a couple of centuries to get a church back to where the CofE is even now, were you to think it best to break it all down and start again. The reality is it wouldn’t happen.
Our challenge is how best to use the blessings God has given us to re-evangelise the nation, but we won’t be able to do that while our leaders lack the confidence to proclaim what our message to the country is.
PM-
Passionate advocate of not throwing the baby out with the bath-water style Anglicanism
Pageantmaster: “tell me Fr Mark, if you are capable of talking about anything other than gay rights..”
That’s a bit rich! I’ve just been reading your comments on the topic on Fulcrum. My excuse for commenting on it so much is that I’m gay, and, along with many friends, suffer directly from the Church’s evil maintenance of injustice and illogicality at the moment. I also have a degree in theology and feel that if people like me don’t try to articulate a more sane policy, then no-one else is going to. Those are surely fair enough reasons to have something to say about it. What’s your excuse for commenting on the topic so much?
What I do observe is that the anti-gay lobby in the Church really hate anyone opposing them who is intelligent, articulate or committed, as they often seem to accept it as axiomatic that their point of view holds a monopoly on those qualities, and they hate the existence of alternative voices form their own. Authoritarians were ever thus.
On women bishops, I don’t see why anyone should feel pushed out. Equally, though, I don’t think the C of E can delay bringing in equal treatment of its women clergy employees asap. I wonder whether anyone much will leave over it, though. The logical time to leave for Rome was when women were admitted to the orders of deacon or priest. I did it at that time and later came back, as did many others. If people go to Rome, why would that be a tragedy anyway? I’d recommend it: it’s far better to be where you feel spiritually comfortable than to stay and make life miserable for everyone else. I would apply the same logic to Conservative Evangelicals, who would often be much happier as Baptists or whatever. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, there are far more congenial places to be than the C of E, which has long been a comfortable baggy old pullover for the rest of us to inhabit happily.
Pageantmaster (#35),
Thanks. LOL. I’m sure you understand the English situation in a way that I as an outsider never will.
BTW, I wish only the best for the CoE. It is, after all, the mother church of Anglicanism and therefore dearly loved and cherished, even if not always understood on this side of the Pond.
Moreover, I remember quite well how furious and irate John Keble was when there was serious talk about disestablishing the (Anglican) Church of Ireland in the 1830s. His university sermon title says it all, “National Apostasy.”
But Newman was forthrightly anti-Erastian. And so am I. As always, I appreciate your thoughtful responses, brother.
David Handy+
#36 Thanks Fr Mark
Actually if you note what I do comment on, it is very rarely on gay issues, I am however interested if anyone can make an intelligent, articulate case although I take a traditional view on Christian morality.
I do care passionately though about the church and its witness. The reason why I follow and comment on the American blogs is I am horrified by the way people who would be pretty middle of the road in the CofE are persecuted in TEC. It has been a shock to see exactly the same thing happen in England over the Anglo-Catholics, although it has been far worse in Wales and Scotland. I think we are very much at crunch time in deciding whether we are going to exercise care for each other or split up.
I think the reason why many Anglo-Catholics did stay when you and others left was that specific provision was made for them. This enabled them to stay, but it had an unfortunate side-effect in that they did become very isolated and it is only recently under the events of last summer that they have emerged and we have had the opportunity to get to know them, and something about them, mainly through blogs to start with. I say that as someone from a prayer book/traditional evangelical background. To characterise me as an inerrantist is a mistake as is the suggestion that I might like to be a Baptist. However I would not be comfortable with a loony left CofE, which is what we will end up with if the middle of the road is pushed to becoming the conservative end of the church by departures. The CofE would collapse into a mire of conflict and persecution just like TEC.
First they came for the …..and all that.
I get absolutely infuriated by the baggy old pullover syndrome. It is no way to manage anything, and has resulted in the loss of something like a fifth of the church’s assets last year, a $70 m loss on one speculative New York housing scheme we had no business investing in, and now huge losses on the pension fund which means that our young clergy face a miserable retirement through sheer incompetant financial management.
That is what baggy pullover management means in reality.
#37 Rev Handy – many thanks for your prayers for us.
Pageantmaster: “The reason why I follow and comment on the American blogs is I am horrified by the way people who would be pretty middle of the road in the CofE are persecuted in TEC.”
This isn’t accurate, though. Don’t believe the calumnies put about by Wright and Nazir-ali. I’ve worked with many TEC clergy, and they are very much like the old-fashioned Anglicans I was brought up amongst; civilised, intelligent, benign, decent mildly eccentric Anglophile people (in a nation where those are not mainstream characteristics). I don’t know any of them who adovocate any of the wild pagan-sounding realms conjured up by malign stirrers in the UK who should know better.
I suppose the baggy pullover may sound toothless, but it is, nevertheless, a very central traditional role of the C of E with an impeccable provenance. As I get older and wiser I appreciate it a lot more than the hot-headed and under-thinking alternatives I used to favour.
PS the reason all those Anglo-Catholics stayed was the fact that they had comfortable vicarages with their boyfriends installed in them. Higher principles didn’t come into it. Don’t be deceived into imagining otherwise.
#40 Fr Mark
“I’ve worked with many TEC clergy, and they are very much like the old-fashioned Anglicans I was brought up amongst; civilised, intelligent, benign, decent mildly eccentric Anglophile people (in a nation where those are not mainstream characteristics). I don’t know any of them who adovocate any of the wild pagan-sounding realms conjured up by malign stirrers in the UK who should know better.”
I don’t get much information from the UK on TEC. I read both the US conservative and liberal blogs and chat to people if they can be bothered to pass the time talking to me. The tragedy is that there are a great many people such as those you describe in TEC, but they are not the people in charge. The instruments of management in TEC are firmly in the charge of revisionists and a number of lobby groups. Anyone who steps out of line is dealt with so many just keep their head below the parapet.
What does puzzle me however is the willingness of decent laity, who the leadership have no hold over, to go along with the persecution, voting with the activists on committees, or in some cases actively promoting it, while telling themselves and anyone who will listen to them that this is not the case.
“the reason all those Anglo-Catholics stayed was the fact that they had comfortable vicarages with their boyfriends installed in them. Higher principles didn’t come into it. Don’t be deceived into imagining otherwise”
If this is true [which is by no means accepted by me as I only have your word that this is representative, any more than your characterisation of others] then considering that you are gay and started off Anglo-Catholic yourself, you really don’t have much sympathy for your former colleagues or am I misreading this?
What the Revision Committee are looking at is whether proper provision for dissenting clergy will be made; for people who were before you left, in accord with the church canons at that time. Their work is predicated on the basis that what they are working on is legislation which may bring in women bishops in the Church of England. If it is, then of course it makes it more likely that the measure will get the necessary super majorities to come into force in all the different houses in Synod.
I am intrigued, Fr Mark – so did you actually go to Rome?
I wonder sometimes if the Anglo-Catholic view of Rome bears as much relation to the reality as thinking of England as Camelot.
Yes, I spent years as a Roman Catholic, indeed would gladly go to communion if at a Roman Catholic Mass today. I don’t understand why becoming RC is spoken of as a fate worse than death! One thing I am quite sure of is that the vast majority of the RC laity are just as “liberal” as any Anglicans are – it’s only the Vatican hierarchy, and, in England, the converts, who trot out the conservative moral line that everyone else is embarrassed by and ignores.
On the Anglo-Catholics who stayed, that’s fine by me, only they shouldn’t bleat about having high principles (they don’t if they’re not prepared to walk the walk). Many gay Anglo-Catholics also became RCs in the 90s, some of them parntnered and some not: many RCs have become Anglicans also, particularly women with vocations to the priesthood. There is a continual va et vient between the two churches, and what’s wrong with that? I settled back into the church I was brought up in because it was tolerant and intelligent, only to find it is now transforming itself into a horrible harsh persecuting unthinking Puritan-run sect: nasty, and not true to its tradition either.
Thank Fr Mark – it is always helpful to hear from those who left for Rome when womens’ ordination came in and then returned for some reason. I don’t think going to Rome is a fate worse than death, but it is a different church from us, much the baptists or methodists are, but it is probably easier for Anglo-Catholics. I think my point was that the image we hold of things can be different from the reality on the ground when we actually make a move – this can lead to disappointment with Camelot.
I am sorry you have such a view of the Church of England. The reality is that its doctrine and teaching has always been clear; what has perhaps happened is as the tensions in the Communion have risen, people on all sides have become more strident and less tolerant of one another. One can see an example of a different type in what happened to the Anglo Catholics in the ’08 Synod. To see bishops leaving in tears was dreadful. I certainly hope proper provision is made for those who hold the traditional view of the apostolic ministry [however lightly some may hold to the church’s teaching in other areas]. I don’t think, whatever is said that they will survive if it is left to the whim of local bishops without statutory back up. If one wants to see what can go wrong, one only has to look at the example of the States.
No, Pageantmaster, Anglican doctrine has never been clear. Just look at the portrayal of the clergy in English literature – congenial, benign, avuncular, intellectual, undogmatic, well-mannered, comfortably worldly are perhaps adjectives that describe the parson in English literary tradition. If you look at the clergy in the literature of other European countries, I doubt very much that you would find the same characterisation of their clergy at all.
Examples of the lack of clarity in C of E doctrine: Evangelical clergy do not all 1) recite the daily office in their churches morning and evening every day; 2) celebrate Mass in their churches every Sunday and major holy day; 3) use only the forms of service given in Common Worship; 4) or wear at a minimum cassock, surplice and stole when celebrating. All of these are laid down in canon law as obligatory.
Further, could anyone decribe the C of E’s doctrine on marrige as clear? You may only marry once in church according to some clergy, but may remarry in church after divorce according to some others. One could go on ad infinitum: Anglicanism is the least cut and dried of all the major churches. Which many of us regard as its strength.
Ah yes, the vexed and important question of what to wear. It engenders some interesting discussions:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=37346
Then again some are more comfortable in a baggy old pullover.
“the clergy in English literature – congenial, benign, avuncular, intellectual, undogmatic, well-mannered, comfortably worldly are perhaps adjectives that describe the parson in English literary tradition”
Yes indeed, the squire-parson with ruddy face scoffing cake, drinking lots of port and riding to hounds; or the pinch-faced and wooden Mr Collins – just as typical of vicars as Derreck Nimmo, Dawn French or Rowan Atkinson.
There certainly were and are some oddball characters who do their own thing, but the vast majority try to follow the rules and rubric of the liturgy, wear the right clothes for the service and preach the Good News.
It is the difference between Camelot and England.
…. so I take it you think the C of E does have a clear doctrine of marriage, then, in the light of the fact that you can or cannot be remarried in church after divorce dependent upon the whim of the vicar; and that clergy may also be remarried divorcees?