The Church of England cannot expect to be “universally welcomed or applauded” for performing its “God-given duty” to re-evangelise the country, the archbishop of York has said.
At a meeting of the General Synod in London, Dr John Sentamu warned that the “counter-cultural vision” of the church mission did not promise a “life of ease, but of criticism, even persecution”.
He told the assembled clergy and laity that people lived in “fractious and uncertain times” in which the national church was “constantly questioned and attacked”.
In order to evangelize or re-evangelize, one must have an organization the members of which know what they believe, and in fact believe full-stop.
As an RC, and one, moreover, who spent 20 years living abroad, I am always mystified by the attachment of the Church of England to its established status. Methinks we have debated this here before, and I apologise for raising it again … but isn’t it a ball and chain around the feet of the Church? As I understand it, the Church of England’s own view of itself is that it is part of the historic Church of God, with a special relationship to the English nation, and as part of that relationship each parish is established to minister to all people within its boundaries, whether they are Anglican or not, and indeed whether they are Christian or not. But there are two problems at least that flow from this: (1) Fantasy I have heard Anglican clergy explain to me that in a sense it doesn’t matter whether people come to church or not, what matters is that the church is there for them when they seek its ministrations. But if people don’t demonstrate some kind of loyalty to you, some kind of common identity with you, it seems to me to be fantasy to believe that you are there for them. Where there is no reciprocity there is no relationship. (2) Doctrinal vagueness Because the Church of England has to minister to so many different types of people, with their varying understandings of what Christianity is, it becomes almost impossible to define what the Church believes. Any definition that was too definite would necessarily exclude those who did not believe that. Anglican comprehensiveness is admirable in many ways, not least its pastoral generosity. But it comes at too great a cost, ultimately. In conclusion let me ask charity from readers of this site irritated at my Catholic opining on Anglicanism: I know, and acknowledge, that we Catholics have troubles enough of our own.
Postscript: I learned much about what it meant to follow Jesus Christ by sitting at the feet of great Anglicans. Here may I pay tribute especially to the late Canon A. M. Allchin, whom we all knew as Donald, who died just before Christmas in his early 80s. In his ministry as residential canon at Canterbury Cathedral, in his encouragement of young men and women of faith, in his friendship with religious orders both Catholic and Anglican, above all in his personal example, a wonderful Christian. Rest in peace, and rise in glory.
Terry Tee,
There are in fact some Anglicans who aren’t doctrinally vague, but your comments hold true for a lot of us, especiall in the west. So feel free to opine!