Category Archives: ang communion
TBTM20090728
Interesting and very sharp comment here, about Rowan’s latest missive: “The argument he made (that changes must be grounded in thorough and convincing biblical exegesis and accepted by the Church at large after that has been done) apply as well to the issue of women priests and certainly to women bishops, an issue very current for the Church of England.”
Quite. Either we’re an autonomous church/communion (part of the Church Catholic) or we’re not. Either we have decided that the ordination of women to the priesthood is legitimate, or we have not (leaving aside questions like divorce and the status of the Queen).
The logic of Rowan’s argument is (ultimately) that we should accept papal primacy, because the Roman Church doesn’t recognise us as legitimate.
Bonkers. One thing that has changed in me over the last several years is a realisation that in this sense (and in this sense only) I am a Protestant.
UPDATE: thought this was good (via Tim C).
What sort of future for the Church of England?
One of the things that I talk about in my LUBH talks is exponential growth, ie what it actually means when something grows consistently at a certain percentage per year. In sum, consistent annual growth (eg 7.5%) means that the entity doubles in size in a particular time frame (10 years for 7.5%), when that continues then stupendous consequences follow, eg fold a piece of paper 40 times and it will touch the moon!
The same principles apply in reverse of course, which brings me to the future of the Church of England:
What this means is that, unless something dramatic changes, the Church of England will have around 80,000 members at the end of this century. I think that there are all sorts of reasons for this decline (not least George Herbert syndrome) and here I just want to draw attention to it as the context for some other things happening at the moment. (I should say that there is a very large difference between ‘the Church’ and ‘the Church of England’ – I have immense confidence in the long-term future of the former, whereas I am quite pragmatically pessimistic about the long-term future of the latter.)
Now we can all point to pockets of growth and new life that spring up here and there – there are several in this patch – and we can come up with all sorts of wonderful reasons why the Church of England is a lovely institution that deserves to continue… but I suspect that, in anything like its present form, the CofE is in the process of dying, in an oh-so-genteel way. The inertia of establishment will prop it up for quite some time before it properly enters its rest however.
Two other factors to bring in: first, all the faction-fighting, especially over women and homosexuality. It does look as if TEC is prepared to go its own way, and this will have implications for how the CofE carries on. I can’t see the split being exclusively outside England and, as I’ve said before if it is the ultra-conservative biblicists that split away (as in previous centuries) then the CofE will be able to muddle along for a bit longer; if, however, it is the (much larger) progressive side that ends up splitting away – leaving the biblicists in a much stronger position – then I suspect the decline will be much swifter.
Will anyone care, or even notice? I’m sure most people in the congregation don’t – they’ll keep turning up and worshipping and supporting the wider life for as long as they can. However, there is the second factor to consider – which is the increasingly straitened financial circumstances that we find ourselves in. The Church is having to shed jobs continuously, and more and more stipendiary posts are vanishing, to be more-or-less replaced by non-stipendiaries and lay workers. This is all well and good – and, I believe, part of God’s secret plan to renew his people in this country – but it has the inevitable side-effect of accelerating the financial crisis. As Bob Jackson has pointed out in his research, the most effective way to precipitate a decline in membership and giving is to not have an incumbent in post.
In this situation I see two main alternatives: the first is a ‘managed decline’, where at each point anyone in authority can say, looking locally, ‘we’re doing alright, it’s not so bad, we’ve slowed the decline – or even stabilised our numbers! etc etc’. This is the apocryphal boiled-frog option in reverse – we haven’t been boiled alive yet!!
The second is that we bet the house on a different way of doing things (after all, if we lose the bet, we have simply embraced the expected future consciously rather than backing into it out of fear and denial) – and it could work. What do I mean by this? I mean things like:
– setting the parishes free of the parish share system, with each parish paying for it’s own minister and housing etc (to the charge ‘what about the poor areas?’ I respond ‘what about the actions that free and faithful Christians will take?!’);
– passing ownership – and therefore the cost of upkeep – of most church buildings to the state, to be cared for as part of our national heritage;
– abandoning establishment, eg Bishops in the House of Lords, which has all sorts of pernicious consequences, one example being the canon law requiring priests to baptise any children whose parents request it;
– abandoning the parish system and reverting to the minster model for church organisation – in effect we become the Anglican church in England, just one denomination, not the Church OF England – so it would be much more like the situation in North America.
I think we need to set ourselves free, to shed the skin of establishment that has become constraining, suffocating and distancing from our environment. I believe it is what God wants – and all the travails we are presently suffering are the ways in which God is trying to get us to change our patterns of life. Bring home the revolution!
The art of constructive criticism
Last weekend I went up to the Peterborough Diocese to lead a study day on ‘Transforming the World’ using my LUBH material, which I thought went well, and the feedback has been solidly positive. Along with the positive feedback, however, came two bits of ‘criticism’, ie that I ask ‘is that clear?’ or ‘does that make sense?’ a bit too often, and I have a tendency to smile too much (something of a nervous tic) which might suggest that I don’t take the material as seriously as might be expected. This I felt was an excellent example of constructive criticism – things that I can do something about to continually improve my presentation skills so that the message gets across ever more effectively.
I do think that our culture as a whole, and clergy in particular, need training in how to give constructive criticism; it’s an incredibly useful art and would probably lead to many fewer of the conflicts now afflicting us if we were able to practise it more effectively. I suppose it’s a way of ‘speaking the truth in love’, which is something I need to work on myself (that is, I think I’ve got the ‘speaking the truth’ bit down OK, it’s the latter that needs attention….)
On not wanting to be a Bishop
Every so often, someone who knows me reasonably well – as opposed to extremely well – will either ask me if I want to be, or suggest that I will end up being, a bishop. The trouble comes when they don’t take my denials at face value and think I’m coming on all Heseltiney, but I really don’t think it’s an attractive job, and I don’t feel any particular vocational call in that direction (for which I am most grateful, thanks boss). I am an ambitious person, but my ambitions lie in different directions, partly all the material associated with my book, partly in (and this is my real deep dark secret) a desire to one day run a theological college and train priests for the ministry. The sort of priests I most admire tend to be like John Keble who turned down a Bishopric (and whose feast we celebrate today – which partly provoked this post) and David Hope who gave up being an Archbishop in order to return to parish ministry.
However….
Having said all that, I do occasionally see things that make me question my certainty on the topic – and this post from Nick Baines is one such. Perhaps being a Bishop is not the muzzle that I perceive it to be!!
TBTM20090602
Rowan’s Rule (Rupert Shortt)
Very interesting, comprehensive and humane biography of the ABC which, whilst not pulling any punches, particularly with regard to his management capabilities, nevertheless conveys an immensely positive portrait of Rowan as a whole. We’re lucky to have him.
TBTM20081102
Rowan’s sermon at General Synod
Part One
Part Two
Declarations from Jerusalem
Our church is presently being disturbed by two separate but inter-linked arguments, over whether to allow women bishops, and whether to allow gay bishops.
I want to concentrate in this post on the latter question because one of the points made in various discussions is that there is no question that women are, as such, existing in a condition of sin. The argument is that allowing women to become bishops, whatever its justification otherwise, does not amount to giving unrepentant sinners authority in the church community. Whereas, appointing an openly gay and non-celibate man as a bishop (eg Gene Robinson) does do this.
I want to begin from the premise that Scripture and tradition describe homosexual behaviour as sinful. I would note that there are various problems with this (eg ‘homosexuality’ as we understand it is unknown in Scripture) but I don’t think my fundamental point is altered by accepting this as a common starting point. Also, for the avoidance of red herrings, let us take it that ‘homosexual behaviour’ refers to sexual behaviour between two men or two women in the context of a socially accepted monogamous covenant (eg civil partnerships), so there are no questions of promiscuity or adultery and so on.
Those who reject the consecration of Gene Robinson argue that, as Scripture and tradition forbid homosexual behaviour, and condemn it in strong terms, it is impossible to accept such an unrepentant sinner in a position of authority. To do so undermines any sense that those in authority in the church can exercise such authority – for their very status and role undermine whatever else they might do.
I think this argument is logical. However, as with lots of logical arguments, the issue is in whether the premises of the argument are true. That is, is it true that homosexual behaviour is a sin?
Denying that homosexual behaviour is a sin can take various forms.
Firstly, it does seem that some circles within the Anglican Communion have retreated from any sense of ‘sin’ as a viable concept at all. We can call this the Liberal perspective. To my mind it is a form of words that Christianity cannot do without, as it describes essential elements of the faith. Where this doctrine is preached then it seems to me that a substantial argument can be made that classical Anglican Christianity has been abandoned.
However, there are other ways to deny that homosexual behaviour is a sin, and, rather wonderfully, we are shown one such way in Scripture, when there are discussions at Jerusalem about how far to preserve obedience to the dietary laws of Moses (see Acts 10 & 11 for the discussion, and Leviticus 11 & Deuteronomy 14 for the original law). Within the inherited tradition of Judaism obedience to these laws is seen as essential for the members of the community. To not keep these laws demonstrated that you were no longer a member of the community in good standing, you were ‘unclean’ – and consequently there could be no prospect of people in positions of leadership being accepted if they rejected these laws. They simply could not be holy.
However, as a result of Peter’s vision, and the experience of interacting with the Gentile converts, the council in Jerusalem accepted that Gentiles did not need to adhere to the dietary laws in order to be saved, and to be full members of the Christian community. This was an incredibly radical decision. Scripture and tradition were unanimous that the dietary laws had to be observed, yet this church council put Scripture and tradition to one side in order to allow the Spirit to determine the right way forward. “So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?” says Peter.
In other words, we know from Scripture that the church itself is given authority to act according to the Spirit. Undoubtedly the early church was drawing on teaching from Jesus himself. Jesus warns his disciples that there are some implications of his teaching that they cannot yet bear, but that the Spirit will come upon them to lead them into the truth (John 16). He also teaches them, particularly Peter, that they will have authority to determine what is permissible and forgiveable, and what is not (Matthew 16.19 & John 20.22-23).
It therefore seems possible to me that the church can determine that what was once considered to be a sin shall no longer be considered to be a sin – even when Scripture and Tradition say that it is. I think that it is essential to separate this perspective from that of the Liberal one described above, for the reasoning comes from completely separate roots. This latter perspective – let’s call it ‘Catholic’ for the time being – is best characterised as being driven by a very high doctrine of the present reality of the Holy Spirit, ie an expectation that the Spirit is present with us now and able to guide our deliberations and decisions in these matters. It is also, of course, a distinctly non-protestant perspective because, by definition, it allows for a higher authority than Scripture. Which again, is not too problematic, for it follows on from Jesus’ own teaching of the distinction between himself as the Word of God and source of salvation, and the Scriptures’ role as a testimony to him, not a source of eternal life in themselves (John 5.39).
I believe that two things need to be present for this latter position to be defensible. The first is that the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ need to be present amongst those who are, prima facie, unrepentant sinners. This requires prayerful and open hearted observation and listening, as called for by the Lambeth conference in 1998. It also requires an acceptance by the church community, by the consensus fidei.
Which is the real reason why these issues have now come to a head. The Anglican Communion has not yet established any means by which the consensus fidei can be determined. That is what the Windsor process is all about – setting up a mechanism by which the questions can be resolved.
Now it may well be that there is no consensus fidei possible; that there are in fact such differences on this question that there can be no reconciliation between those who see homosexual behaviour as sinful and those who no longer see it in the same way. What I don’t see as helpful is lumping together the ‘Liberal’ perspective with the ‘Catholic’ perspective, and treating them both as heretical.
I think that it is true that what is at stake here is the status of Scripture, whether it is the final authority or not. However, it is possible to reject Scripture as a final authority on Liberal grounds, and also on Catholic (or orthodox!) grounds. In other words, what we may be seeing here is the death throes of Protestantism in England…
More on that last point at another time.