In the economy of great achievement, two things stand out in my own mind:
Ӣ A compelling vision, usually involving a big idea;
Ӣ A plan that addresses the primary challenge that stands in the way of the realization of that big idea.
It would be very easy for us to imagine that the primary challenge was one of our own internal challenges around finance or church buildings. These are things that we can’t ignore, but surely the big challenge is something more like this:
How does the Church of England re-engage with a culture that is increasingly secular and post Christian?
The Bishop of Bristol writes to his flock, inspired by the recent 52-page pastoral letter issued by his fellow bishops in the CofE:
[blockquote] “We have a great idea and the great thing about it is that it is not our idea, but God’s vision for human society. I think there is a palpable hunger out there for a coherent and compelling vision for how we might, as a global community live together on this planet.”[/blockquote]
Therein lies the nub of the various problems which the good bishop complains about in his sermon, because what he describes as the church’s vision is NOT the gospel! It is true that the spread of Christianity tends to lead to better societies, but that is not its primary aim. Rather, its primary aim is to spread the message that each person faces God’s righteous punishment for their sin, and only by accepting Christ’s righteous sacrifice in their place can they be truly free.
There is a deep theological sickness in the leadership of the CofE.
[blockquote] “It would be very easy for us to imagine that the primary challenge was one of our own internal challenges around finance or church buildings. These are things that we can’t ignore, but surely the big challenge is something more like this: …” [/blockquote]
That is of course a very practical problem and it is not about to go away. The Church of England has legal responsibility for well over 10,000 heritage listed buildings, and many of them do not have viable congregations to maintain them. Combine that with a shrinking and ageing pew population, and yes, there is a real problem.
The bishop then confronts another aspect of this problem – many parishes are not paying to the diocese and province what the CofE thinks they should be paying:
[blockquote] At one level this leads to an unhealthy individualism in our parishes that works out as, “we will only pay for what we get.†This effectively means we think, at least by implication, that we are less concerned to see the Mission of God outworked across the whole Diocese, the whole nation, because we reduce the Kingdom of God to our own little piece of it in our parish/benefice, whatever.”[/blockquote]
I suggest there are two aspects to this:
(a) Some of these low-contributing parishes are orthodox evangelical or anglo-catholic. They do not agree with Bishop Hill’s theology, and they do not see why they should contribute to enable that theology to be propagated. These congregations are certainly not ignoring ministry to “the whole Diocese, the whole nation”, quite the contrary. But they intend to control how their money is spent on such ministry.
(b) Others (probably far greater in number) don’t necessarily disagree with the prevailing theology among the CofE bishops, but they simply aren’t motivated by the vision set out in the Bishops’ Pastoral Letter to give sacrificially to the diocese or province.
And therefore we come full circle, back to the first point: Bishop Hill’s vision is not going to challenge, nor stimulate, nor inspire. It is essentially a secular world-view with no life in it.