A few weeks ago, Linda Woodhead suggested in the Church Times that discipleship was a ”˜theologically peripheral concept’, and the following week Angela Tilby dismissed the ”˜d-word’ as ”˜sectarian vocabulary that”¦shows the influence of American-derived Evangelicalism on the Church’s current leadership.’ The short discussions in each place actually raise not one but three, inter-related, questions:
1. Is ”˜discipleship’ Anglican?
2. Is ”˜discipleship’ biblical?
3. Is the Church of England biblical?
Having read Ian Paul’s article, as well as the articles by Linda Woodhead and Angela Tilby which he critiques, I get the impression that each make very valid points, but mainly talk past each other.
In the case of Linda Woodhead, she makes the somewhat disparaging comment “the theologically peripheral concept of discipleship” but really the nub of her article appears to be this:
[blockquote] “Again, there is worry about challenges’ being ducked. If having more clergy in the past didn’t lead to growth, why should it now? Given an increasingly educated and able laity, wouldn’t it be better to think how they can play a bigger part, and to resource it? And, if the Church’s leadership isn’t what it should be, why not reform it fully? Why be content with half measures? Ditch the outdated and unfair patronage system, and bring in open competition, proper accountability, transparency, and 360° assessment for all, including bishops. It works for the rest of us.”
[/blockquote]
Rightly or wrongly, Prof. Woodhead appears to equate the concept of ‘discipleship’ outlined in the latest CofE reports as being synonymous with greater clericalism.
In response, Ian Paul provides a resounding defence of the centrality of the concept of discipleship in the New Testament, and I am sure that he and Justin Welby are correct on this. But it doesn’t engage with Prof. Woodhead’s real point.
I am not saying she is right or wrong, just that I don’t think she has been answered. I think at least part of the answer is obvious – many of the ideas she is suggesting are completely untried. From her article:
[blockquote] “The rejoinder, of course, is that it is the congregations that pay the bills. Today, that’s mainly true, but, in a more imaginative future scenÂario, it needn’t be. The reports just asÂsume that the only way in which the Church can continue to fill its cofÂfers is to stock the pews with a new generation of givers, but there are many additional ways in which a societal church could raise money. They include better-organised fundÂraising for particular causes, an annual membership charge along the lines of the National Trust, and comÂpetitive charging for some asÂÂpects of the Church’s work. The reÂports are wrong to let the current funding tail wag the ecclesiastical dog.” [/blockquote]
An annual membership charge? Very northern European, but I can see it leading to a great deal of trouble and strife in England. There are many now who want to get rid of bishops in the House of Lords – think of how they would react to this idea!
But at least she confronts the real issue – the Church of England has relied for generations on people in the pews to provide the resources for its operations, not only through their tithes, but also their volunteer work. Now that the people are leaving the pews, or dying and not being replaced, the Church of England cannot pay for itself. Its not yet a desperate situation, but it is a concerning one. Prof. Woodhead doesn’t like that fact, but can’t come up with any serious alternative.
Completely agree MichaelA.