The church got the message. Although it contained only nebulous safeguards for conservatives, the latest proposal was backed by a thumping majority of lay delegates to the Synod: 152 in favour and just 45 against. Even among the church’s growing contingent of evangelicals, a survival instinct prevailed. Survival as what, though? Some clergy, like Giles Fraser, an outspoken leftist, think the church should cut loose from the state and deliver hard truths from the margins of society.
In England, as in many historically Christian countries, the national church faces a choice. Either it can use its ancient privileges to cast a pale wash of religion over a secular society, making the necessary compromises; or it can morph into one or several minority subcultures, guided by their own particular lights, whose views are no business of politicians.
Over women bishops, the church stepped in the first direction. But if, as is expected, most bishops in the Lords vote against a forthcoming bill on assisted dying, it will swing the other way. Fresh questions may be asked about why bishops of one church, which attracts 2% of the population to its services, should vote at all.
They did over divorce, so why wouldn’t they over everything.
!
“They did over divorce”
What do you mean, MargaretG?
A good article from the Economist. The secular press can see the inherent self-contradictions in the position of the Church of England, better than its own hierarchy can.
There are also hints in the article of what we have found in other parts of the world – a Church that tries to compromise with secular culture doesn’t end up earning any respect from that culture. Paradoxically, the churches who stand up to the secular culture end up getting more respect from it.
The ball now lies in the court of orthodox evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics in England – what are they going to do about this? There are all sorts of ways they can take action – various forms of civil disobedience and protest are available to them, ranging from simply withholding certain payments, right through to leaving the CofE and constituting themselves as independent Anglican entities taking oversight from Anglican bishops overseas. Some courageous congregations within CofE have taken such steps over the past 15 years – some are no longer in CofE whereas some remain there, but have found ways of making their disagreement with the CofE’s direction clear.
But then, there are also many congregations who have not taken any practical steps at all to differentiate themselves from the mad lemming-like rush of the CofE over the liberal cliff. What will those congregations do now?
No doubt many will hope that they can still carrying on making no decision, while claiming their evangelical or anglo-catholic credentials and ignoring anything that requires difficult or sacrificial decisions. But the history of the church is replete with examples of churches and congregations who have tried that, and suddenly found that they missed their chance to take a stand, and it is too late.
One big difference for some of the big Evangelical congregations in the UK – as compared say with the US – appears to be that, despite the abolition of parson’s freehold, they appear to be such worlds unto themselves, both in terms of membership and financial resources, that they can largely isolate themselves from the life of their diocese. Few bishops want to interfere with these parishes because the financial health of their dioceses is so precarious.
That might change if we get new bishops with pointedly ideological agendas, but for now that seems unlikely. There were a couple of congregations in Sheffield (where we lived from 2012 to 2013) where I gather Bishop Croft simply didn’t make episcopal visitations at the parish’s request.
On paper the Church of England has more hierarchical indicia than TEC, but it doesn’t seem to translate into the exercise of hierarchical authority, at least not yet.