Clergy in the Chelmsford Diocese have received an Ad Clerum from Bishop Stephen relating to the Ordinariate, which seems to me to be graciously robust. Key points:

– +Stephen is seeking ‘clarity and generosity’
– those entering the ordinariate are leaving the Church of England, therefore clergy need to formally resign
– parsonage houses will not be transferred
– “we will… move quickly to make new appointments” to the relevant parishes
– +Stephen is open to shared use of church buildings, but not on Sunday mornings as this will “not serve the need for clarity”
– those parishes that have been withholding their parish share have been acting dishonourably, and +Stephen asks for the withheld moneys to be paid back – “Without this it will be all the harder to have the generous conversations we hope for”.

Good stuff.

I’ve written before about where I think the CofE is headed (see especially here, here, here and, most simply, here). And I’m just wondering… I wonder what future the TEC-sympathetic clergy and congregations have in the CofE? Which is really one way of asking: what is the future for those of us who are Anglo-Catholic in theology and worship and spirituality, but who neither want to go to Rome nor embrace liberal-ish evangelicalism?

I read this post a while back, which made me think a lot. I know the church and people concerned (close to where I did my curacy) and the vitality of that sort of Anglo-Catholicism has surely vanished – rightly, on many things.

If I were to dream up a recipe for ‘my’ sort of Anglo-Catholicism, what would it look like?

At the heart – and what would qualify it as ‘Anglo-Catholic’ – would be the three-fold emphasis flowing from the theology of the Incarnation. That means: a eucharistically-centred spirituality (worship); a commitment to the orthodox creeds (doctrine); and a passionate engagement with the world, seeking social justice (service). These three I see as aspects of a single commitment, that is, logically, you can’t have one without the other two; or, at least, you can’t have full-bodied versions of one without the others, as they each support the other and give them purpose, focus and strength.

Theologically, it means a commitment to the catholic faith, understood in the traditional way as ‘what has been believed everywhere by all Christians’ – which I know is an ideal that has never been actualised, but ideals are important. In practice what this means is an acceptance of the teachings promulgated by the united councils of the church, ie through the first millenium. It involves reference to and reverence for the teachings of the church fathers as holding great weight for how we are to understand the faith. It means classical theism and an embrace of Christian mysticism. It means the approval of icons and incense – worship embracing all the senses!

With respect to the church in England, it means that we see the Anglican church as a part of the catholic church – not a sect but simply the gathering of believers in this territory. It means not claiming any doctrinal distinctives, nor any exclusive possession of the truth. It means rejecting the claims of foreign popes, and certainly the Modern doctrinal corruptions associated most especially with Vatican 1. No to Marian dogmas, but certainly an acceptance of Marian devotion such as hymns to the Theotokos.

It means a profound scepticism about the established nature of the church, and a settled intent to seek disestablishment in so far as that pursuit does not undermine more immediately important goals. It means putting flesh on the bones of ‘episcopally led, synodically governed’; that is, obedience to our bishops is still a virtue ardently to be sought, but it would be better if the bishops were elected.

It means – in the words of +Richard Chartres when he once gave a charge to ordinands – not getting caught up with the ‘festoons‘ of the faith: particular manners of dress or address; and also abandoning the whole panoply of eucharistic devotions that derive from the theological corruptions symbolised by Corpus Christi.

It feels good to get all that off my chest. However I suspect that, sadly, those who share this understanding are doomed to live out our ministries in a state of exile.

Just thinking out loud…

I’ve written before about where I think the CofE is headed (see especially here, here, here and, most simply, here). And I’m just wondering… I wonder what future the TEC-sympathetic clergy and congregations have in the CofE?

John Richardson – always an interesting read, and from whom I learn a lot, even in disagreement – has a post up outlining five tests of orthodoxy, taken from the 39 Articles. Herewith a commentary on his five tests, and an alternative list of five.

Give your response to the following statements (adapted from the 39 Articles):
1. “Christ … truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of people.”
2. “Original Sin … is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man … whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil … and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.”
3. “We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine.”
4. “Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.”
5. “It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”
What one would be looking for in the answers would be, amongst other things, an absence of ‘nuancing’…

Herewith my ‘nuancing’ 🙂
1. I would start to nuance at the point of the word ‘sacrifice’. What is meant or understood by it? A Pagan concept (like King Kong – appeasing an angry monster) or a fully Biblical concept? – by which I mean something much broader and richer than we’ve inherited from the Reformation era. I would understand the phrase ‘bearing our sins’ in a different way to that associated with penal substitution.
2. Wouldn’t want to nuance this much – perhaps just pointing out that we were originally created in God’s image, and that our sharing in divinity is more basic than our sin.
3. The nuancing would be about how to understand faith; I agree with the substance.
4. I don’t agree with this one; that is, I think that the emphasis upon the Name is not something that Jesus himself would recognise (and I think it undercuts a proper doctrine of the Trinity). I would, however, affirm that none can come to the Father except by Him.
5. This I disagree with (see discussion here), mainly because I think it is in itself incoherent and unScriptural (lurking behind it is, I would argue, a faulty understanding of what the Word of God means).

John suggests that those who disagree, substitute in other tests. I’m not averse to there being tests of orthodoxy. If the teaching ministry is essential to ordination (which I think it is) then there does need to be something to mark out what is acceptable and what is not. I think my five tests would look something like this (comments very welcome):

Do you accept:
1) the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as understood and expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed?
2) that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead on the third day, and appeared to Peter and the disciples?
3) that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord of all, and the one to whom you owe your final allegiance?
4) that the Church of England is a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church?
5) the discipline of the Church of England, and will you give canonical obedience to those in authority over you, in all things lawful and honest?

Obviously, my emphases are rather different to John’s!

Thought I’d say something about this story; put simply, I think it would be wonderful if John were to be appointed to Southwark.

Jeffrey John has, at (presumably) some personal cost, demonstrated what it means to obey a teaching that you do not agree with. I think we could do with more of that witness to the virtue of obedience, especially at the highest levels of the church.

It would put right a past injustice. The objections to John being made Bishop of Reading did not seem to be made with Christian charity or notions of ‘bearing each other’s burdens’ – rather there was an attempt to force the hand of the hierarchy, which succeeded, and, in my view, gravely damaged Rowan’s ministry.

Following on from that, an appointment of John would represent an affirmation of traditional Anglican inclusivity, and a rejection of homophobia. I think the charge of homophobia is easier to make with regard to John because of his celibacy – the real motivations become clearer.

Unless the motivation is with regard to his teaching re homosexuality – but then the totalitarian ideology is exposed. The spirit blows where it will, and Jesus has many more things to teach us that we can’t cope with yet.

Personally speaking, I had been getting quite gloomy about the way that developments in the church had seemed to be moving, and I had started to believe that a really quite profound split was likely to take place – mainly because what I generally perceive to be the ‘middle ground’ in the church was seeming to be on the path to being excluded. Appointing John would, in my view, make that tremendously less likely, and, at the same time, a different split more likely. This is a selfish point really – if John were to be appointed I’d personally feel ‘safer’ in the CofE than hitherto.

My one suspicion – my cynical side emerging – is whether the appointment of John is designed to ‘buy off’ opposition to the Archepiscopal fiddle with regard to women bishops. I hope that isn’t the case.

I shall follow the story with great interest, and if John is appointed, I shall cheer.
UPDATE: I thought it was too good to be true. How very depressing.