Last week I agreed to provide the Times with a statement in response to questions about the future of the Church of England in the face of its current debates (plural). The intention was to offer a wider perspective from which to view where we have got to. It was intended for publication before the ‘women bishops’ debate, but was posted on Ruth Gledhill’s blog today. As agreed, she published it in full – and I am grateful. Had I written it today, I might have done it differently – in the light of what actually happened – so I will follow the quoted statement with further observations. Here is the statement:
The church does not need to be saved – other than in a theological sense. The current debates are happening because, rather than being indifferent, Anglicans take theology and church order seriously. Contrary to some opinions, this is not an unhealthy thing to do openly.
It is clear that the Church wants to be able to appoint women bishops. It is the duty of all bishops to seek the unity of the church and it is this attempt that is proving difficult. If the circle proves itself incapable of being squared, then the church will have to make painful decisions. However, it will then do so in the light of having explored every option – which is what pastoral leadership is all about.
The Church of England is unique in being reformed and catholic, and it is this ‘stretch’ that both gives it its unique breadth and greatest challenge. In a culture of fragmentation and selfishness, it also offers the possibility of modelling how, despite the real tensions, a community of difference can hold together. After all, Jesus called his disciples and didn’t give them a veto over who else could join them: their witness was in how they followed Jesus together, and not in their forced unanimity. Nothing has changed.
In this, as in other contentious matters, we will argue our cases, make our decisions and then move on. This generation is not unique in facing difficult judgements, so we should not get current debates out of proportion: no ‘crisis’ is ultimate. As with other issues, we engage with the realities of people’s lives and society’s challenges and changes; but the role of the church is not simply to ‘go with the flow’ of the wider world, but to question and challenge and, sometimes, appear stubborn. That will not change either – in relation to political issues, economic praxis or priorities, social movement or moral norms.
Fundamentally, the Church of England is rooted in a theology of resurrection. Endings are never the end. It is Christ’s church and we are called to remember this whenever we think it all depends on us. However, if things get even tougher, we will still wake up in the morning, take a breath and get on with the business from where we then find ourselves. This is not novel, but neither is it boring.
The confident leadership the church has had thus far – and will continue to need in the future – will be rooted in a perspective such as that cited above. Such leadership needs to know when to speak and when to be silent, when to act and when to remain still… but always to pray. There is no reason why the church should not grow in confidence in the years to come, but this makes sense because of my final point…
Look at (a) any General Synod agenda and (b) what ordinary Christians are doing in and through their parish churches and institutions and it becomes clear that the issues that dominate the media do not dominate every waking moment of ordinary Anglicans. On the contrary, links with parishes and dioceses abroad, social action at local and regional level, deep commitment to children and young people in education, imaginative and creative outreach and evangelism – all these things go on every day, with the most vulnerable people in our society cared for, spoken for and supported… without being trumpeted. Only two contentious issues hit the media headlines while 99% of our service, concern and activity does not. Life will carry on.
Where we are now is this. The House of Bishops, which had been asked to be clear about the status of women in the episcopate whilst making proper provision for those opposed, had attempted to do so – and ended up pleasing no one (apparently). However, their role in amending the Measure was what the church requires of its bishops – who were trying in good faith to square a circle that no one else has managed to square thus far. The response was anticipated by some, but not by most. The response itself demanded further attention be given to the matter. Adjourning the debate was clearly the best outcome, but it still leaves the original question unanswered: how are we to satisfy two conflicting demands in a single legal clause? Simply dropping the offending amendment will not of itself resolve the issue as it is highly likely that the unamended Measure would still be defeated in the House of Laity on the grounds that inadequate protection was being offered to those opposed to women bishops. (And it is worth noting that ten or a dozen dioceses that voted for the draft legislation also passed following motions to this effect.)
We need to draw breath, look at it again, receive advice on how others might see the circle being squared, then return to it in November as a synod. But, we should be cuatious about responses such as that in the Guardian which stated that the Synod had ‘thrown out the bishops’ amendment’. It hadn’t. And returning with the same amendment is one of several options if no better way can be found to resolve the matter. It is to be hoped, of course, that a better way (or wording) might be found in the coming weeks or months.
However, behind all this it is important to remember that painful as all this is – to everyone – its outcome does not change the resurrection or the vocation of the church to live in the light of the resurrection every day. And in that light I, personally, pray we will open the way for women in the episcopate as soon as possible.
July 11, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Are Anglican bishops empowered to undertake self-started initiatives? The “self” + “undertake/act” part captures the Greek meaning of /authentein/, while my question tries to bypass subsequent semantic argument to put the issue squarely about the life of the Church. Paul was writing when Scripture and church regulation were both formative, and conflicting initiatives more than hierarchical authority were the concerns of his letters. Of course the paragraph above on “theology of resurrection” indicates the CofE regards itself as ever formative, but I don’t think a current bishop’s authority is localized in the same way as to run afoul of Paul’s direction by moving without the body.
July 11, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Thanks Nick. Appreciate that perspective. I think it’s an important issue in a very diverse church and if it takes longer to get a decision that is the best we can get, then so be it.
I am glad that despite the pressures from the media and all the many lobbying factions/traditions within the church, we still try and hear & understand one another, be it inside Synod or out here in the blog world. Praying for everyone willing to shoulder that responsibility and work hard at listening. We all need to do more of it, but its a natural reaction to draw up the drawbridge and attack instead, in a world where insecurity and fear underlie many important debates. There aren’t any short cuts to being a flawed human alongside other flawed humans.
July 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm
KWRegan, interesting question and observation. But where do you locate or delimit ‘the body’?
July 11, 2012 at 6:29 pm
With a nod to Kim, I’ll delimit it as “inside Synod”, which seems appropriate to the kind of formative initiative I’m interpreting here. As opposed to “out here in the blog world”
. More to my point, I think the capacity of a woman bishop to hire/fire men and approve regional funds is not the kind of action Paul is concerned about.
July 11, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Nick
Thank you for this and I genuinely mean that. I appreicate that this is beyond your control, but I wish I had seen your take on this last week, or we may not have had such sharp exchanges at times over this.
My question is simply this? Do you honestly think the circle can ever be squared? I know you ferevently hope it can, but do you actually believe that it can? Are we flogging a dead horse? Is the chasm between the two opposing views too wide? I ask this because given your, probably correct assertion that the measure would have fallen in the House of Laity (which as a lay person depresses me beyonfd measure and begs the question why do the majority of Bishops and clergy clearly think there is already adequate protection for opponents, but lay members don’t??….). How many options will need to be explored before vital decisions have to be taken which will cause pain and schlsm.
“Their witness was in how they followed Jesus together”. I only wish church history bore this out.
The Church of England itself was formed out of schism,(ie breaking awayfrom Rome) largely at the instigation of a deeply flawed monarch whose own attitiude towards women was hardly exemplary. Was such schism which led to the formation of the Church of England contrary to the the will of Almighty God?
Was Martin Luther wrong to nail his theses to the Wittenberg door and begin a schism which shook the Christian church to it’s very foundations? If schism and disunity is always wrong..was Martin Luther outside the will of God in doing what he did? Amd let’s face many of the Reformers were deeply riven by schism and disagreement themselves.
Charles and John Wesley never wanted to leave the Anglican church really, but had little option but to leave and form the Methodist Church which quickly grew and flourished,, especially amongst the poorer industrial working classes who were very dear and close to Gods heart, if not senior Anglican churchmen at the time? Were they both being blatantly disobedient to the will of God by creating and causing such schism, albeit with very heavy hearts?
Surely schism and separation is not always a bad thing, or always against the will of God, even when it inevitable causes deepand lasting pain.
For me the issue lies in will any amount of protection prove adequate for those who are vehmently opposed to the admission of women to the episcopate. The two amendments the HoB proposed did not go anywhere near far enough according to it’s opponents.. And the HoB clearly rejected and refused to send to Synod other amendments which would have widened the provision available? How much provision is ever likely to be deemed ‘enough’?.
I personally think that the belief that this is a circle that can be squared is starting to look like little more than wishful thinking, no matter how much effort is put into it, and an awful lot of effort has been expended already. And although you are right in saying that 10 or 12 Diocesan Synods passed a following amendment, that still means that between 30 and 32 other Diocesan Synods did no such thing, and wanted the original legislation to remain unamanded, which is well over a two thirds majority amongs the Synods.
And I ask again…why do the Bishops and clergy think enough adequate protection is afforded already, but the laity don’t?…and why are the House of LaIty in General Synod so worrying out of kilter with the Houses of Laity in Diocesan Synods across the country who were strongly in favour of the original legislation?
July 12, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Phil, just a quickie. The reason the House of Laity of the General Synod is out of kilter with the Houses of Laity of the Diocesan Synods is that motivated people stand for GS and it is not representative of the dioceses. That’s democracy for you!
July 13, 2012 at 10:34 pm
“The reason the House of Laity of the General Synod is out of kilter with the Houses of Laity of the Diocesan Synods is that motivated people stand for GS and it is not representative of the dioceses. That’s democracy for you!”
Hmm Nick..are you really sure about that!? To quote a certaion Mr McEnroe “you cannot be serious!!”
I would ask you to pause for a momentn and take a look in your minds eye at the lay members of General Synod, and ask yourself what is their average age, and then ask how long has each of those members has served on Synod. And then maybe takle a straw poll amongst those members who have been on for quite some time to think about standing down to give somebody else a go, and then inform of their response.
I am pretty sertain that the Lay Chair of General Synod was on General Synod when I worshipped at Greyfriars Church in Reading and that was back in the late 1980s, almosy 25 years ago, and he is still on there now!!! Even the President of the USA only serves for two four year fixed terms, whereas lay members of General Synod can serve almost ad infinitum. Surely that can’t be right!
And as for your cheap “not motivated enough” jibe, are you seriously suggesting that the onlytruly “highly motivated” lay people in the Church of Engkand are those who serve on General Synod. Surely you have got to be joking Nick! If you do believe that then I take it you have not spent much time amongst the ordinary laypeople of the Diocese of Bradford who work and minister their hearts out giving of their time and money (and often being asked for more by the senior hierarchy) in order to ensure that mission and ministry takes place successfully on a daily basis.
Most of us balance extremely demanding day jobs, church life and minsitry (and far more is being asked of Readers and other layfolk noew that clergy numbers are falling) and family/home and community life. It is not only Bishops who are always very busy, as we keep being reminded on a regular basis!
And I am sure that many of us lay people are far too switched on and sensible to join a body which takes twelves years to debate and talk endlessly before even getting to the point of a vote or a decision, on issue which most right-minded and forward thinking bodies.organisations would have had done, dusted, decided, and progressed within no more than 12 months.
However, if you think, as you do, that I wasn’t motivated before, you can bet your bottom dollar that I am highly motivated now!
July 14, 2012 at 10:24 am
Nick, I believe, based on a quantitative analysis, that your optimism is misplaced, and Phil is nearer the mark Sadly, where both of you fail, is in underestimating the impact of rejecting that minority who want the privilege of adhereing to their doctrines on womens’ leadership (a few) and gay marriage (many). In our deanery 60% of the members are in growing churches, none of which are liberal; they are evangelical or traditional. Of those 88% will feel that the C of E would rather they departed, even though most have women priests and engage massively with women’s lay leadership. Some of their leaders have been told as much by general synod storm troopers. The stable and dying liberal or liberal led traditional churches are bleeding members at 2-5% per annum, although the deanery as a whole is growing (its those pesky evangelicals again!). The growing churches are polite and kind, hard working and always happy to rub along with our liberal diocesan leadership in all pragmatic matters but these two issues in aggregate will at least cause most of our members to circle the wagons, or at worst to look more longingly at the FCA.
Does the church really want this? On women bishops almost all want them, as is often observed. What few want is for our Queen Elisabeth to have to do the task of her illustrious namesake in forcibly knocking heads together to make the body of Christ appear a reality. What no one wants is that liberal intolerance(?) drives the reformers(!) from the church.
It may interest readers to know that there is a much more lively social intercourse between the South coast evangelicals and their friends in ….Roman Catholic churches. Witness the many RC colleagues who helped license my wife to her Anglican parish last week, or their bishop who supports her ministry.Now, wouldn’t that be an ecumenical turn up for the books!
July 14, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Phil, I find your patronising assumptions about my thinking (which you largely misread) do not incline me to respond. Feel free to put your points, but please don’t patronise me.
July 14, 2012 at 8:48 pm
John, thanks for this comment. I am not optimistic (in any blind sense), but I also know that the picture is not as simple as you suggest. It is precisely because the church does not want ‘this’ that we keep trying to (as I keep putting it) square the circle. But this has to be done in words on paper – legal paper – and that is proving tough to agree. I fully take your point about evangelical growth, but your local experience, although evident in many places, is not replicated everywhere. As you illustrate, the reality on the ground is less rigid than we often think, and all Christians who take the resurrection seriously must be open to surprise.
July 14, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Nick
I am sorry you have felt patronised but that is exactly how I have felt at times by some of your own comments on occasions. if I come across as overly patronsing I do apologise, but I feel that at times you come across as blase and at times demeaning, especally the comment regarding the implication that the movers and shakers at General Synod are more motivated than those of us who may never, for valid reasons ever seek to get there It’s not always just about motivation, but sometimes about whether it is the right motivation.
John. I thought yours was an excellent comment, especially regarding your closing comments regarding your Roman Catholic friends A number of years ago, as part of a week of region wide mission called Merseyfest, I led a team which set up an event (aimed at being missionally sustainable in the longer term) for the over 50s in our area.. It ended up attracting 90 people, a mixture of churched (our own and several others), unchurched and dechurched. It has gone from strength to strength (under an excellent separate leadership team to whom I passed the mantle on) and is the only initative from the whole event that is still ongoing and growing some 6 or 7 years on. It has also brought my once heavily church going but dechurched for over 10 years parents, back into some sort of church activity, including my Dad who returned to our church (not the one he and my Mum had eventually left) for two years before he was diagnosed with a terminal illness from which he died very shortly afterwards.
I say that not to blow my own trumpet, but among those 90 people were a large number of people from the neighbouring Roman Catholic parish, whose priest at the time was very “old school” and with whom relations had been very cool for many years. I say that not to blow my own trumpet, but to state that what gladdens my heart is that, as an evangelical charismatic church (of a more “open” inner city variety”) a group of Roman Catholics, who would never have darkened our doors several years previously, now feel very much at home amongst us as our much loved friends
So much so, that we had a tremendous experience very much like your wife’s , when our new female priest in charge was licensed, and the priest of another local Catholic church, from the admirable Salesian order, who was invited, and whom is known to and very popular with these other folk, gladly attended the licensing of a female priest whose orders he is allegely not supposed to recognise! That is certainly not how it felt, and he even suggested a pulpit swap! It would not have surprised me if he had half jokingly suggested she should preside there also! (Wouldn’t that be a great day should it ever happen!)
I am convinced that God is very much at work at ground/parish/community level on the ground in these situations, as I am sure you and your wife would agree.
May I just put on record that as a student I was a Christian Union President, Mission & Evangelism/Prayer Secretary during my college days, and had strong UCCF connections (an admirable conservative evangelical body), serving for two years as Regional Representative, representing all the West Midlands Polytechnics/Colleges on the National Colleges Executive. I have also worshipped at several conservative evengelical churches, amongst whom are peoole for whom I am profoundly grateful to for having have entered my life, and for the way they have pastored me, and helped shape my life and future ministry. I have since journeyed somewhat theologically whilst remaining firmly in the evangelical fold, but I do not see how we can go on giving concession after concession to the opponents of the measure without greatly compromising the ministry of a femal Bishop and making her position virtually untenable.
And Nick, I am guessing you have me down as a “turbulent Reader”, and clearly a patronsing one at that, but I would also like to put it on record that I have had the privilige of serving under my current Bishop (and his equally admirable Suffragan) for many years without any problems whatsoever. I have just read his immense recent book of Prayer book based meditiations on the Psalms, following his recent heart surgery, and have passed it onto a Roman Catholic work colleague who has asked to read it, as has her father. I also think his publically stated change of stance on the issue of gay people in the church following his earlier opposition to the consecration of Jeffery John as Bishop of Reading to be one of the most honest and courageous things I have seen a Bishop ever do, especially a leading /senior evangelical one.
I do not underestimate that this is a very difficult area to negotiate but we do have to “go there” at some point I am afraid and risk the consequences and trust that God, in his infinite patience, grace and mercy, will remain Sovereign, and given His track record will indeed continue to bless those who agree with the Measure and those who don’t, whether they choose to stay within the Church of England, or eventually decide to leave it.
July 15, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Nick
Once again, on reflection I do apologise if I went somewhat over the top with my remarks the other day. I can understand your real annoyance at feeling patronised and I am genuinely sorry for that. I am sure you did not intend for your comments to have the impact which they did.
The sermon, based on today’s gospel reading this morning was on the jollyand upbeat theme of the beheading of John The Baptist, during which Claire our vicar, focused on the tensions that were clearly evident between Herod and John, and Herod and his immediate family and friends, which John got caught up in, and she went on to unpack how difficult it is to live with the various tensions we all face in our church life (both nationally and locally), family and community lives, which have been all too evident recently.
Having thought about the motivation issue, having now calmed down, I have to confess and admit on reflection that there is some truth in what you say. My vicar pleaded with a very reluctant yours truly to stand for election by our PCC as Deanery Synod rep, and went as far as to persuade a long standing member and devotee of DS to stand down so I could take her place. He said that it really needed shaking up and thought I could be the person to do it (I did think at the time, “be careful what you wish for!) I have tried my best, as respectfully as I can to fulfil his wishes…not sure if I have succeeded, although I have been elected to serve on the Deanery Mission and Pastoral Committee (and was subsequently re-elected)
He was hoping that I might become the new Lay Chair when the post became vacant, but for a number of reasons it was not feasible at the time. However, I did suggest that a very able friend and fellow church member be proposed as Lay Chair when the post again became vacant last year, and she was elected unopposed. When she attended her first meeting with the Bishop at which all Lay Chairs were present, the Bishop came over and said to her how delighted he was that, although in her early forties herself, she had lowered the average of Synod Lay Chairs in the Diocese by some 20 years!
July 15, 2012 at 8:32 pm
I have enjoyed reading this blog and the many different comments for a year or two now and the posts and discussions have been great. However, it seems to me recently that too many comments are much too wordy. May I suggest an upper limit of (say) 400 words as some other sites do?
July 15, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Cathy
Point very much taken…tbh I think that is solely my fault/responsibility to which I hold my hands up!. Will try my very best in future.
Hmm..that was pretty brief…especially for me!!
July 16, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Well said, Cathy. However thoughtful and deep they may be, blog posts which are too long (or even look too long on the screen) are counterproductive.
July 16, 2012 at 11:52 pm
In light of the tensions threatening to rip the Coalition government apart, Boris Johnson, in his own inimitable style, has today described the government as a marriage that is “doomed to succeed”.
If the Admission of Women To The Episcopate measure that comes back to Synod is eventually passed in November, given the ongoing increasing tensions between the anglo catholic/conservative evangelical/open evangelical/central churchmanship/liberal catholic/liberal/charismatic/non-charismatic parties within the coalition that makes up the Church of England (and the list is by no means exhaustive), will the Church of England resemble a marriage that is likewise “doomed to succeed”?
Just wondering…(hey..a mere 121 words..I appear to be getting the hang of this!!..)
July 17, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Hey Phil, carry on like this and before long, you’ll be lifting up thine eyes to Twitter! For what it’s worth, I enjoy reading your long comments, even when I don’t understand them all that well!
July 17, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Hey Toto…me… on Twitter…..gasp…splutter!! Perish the thought! How would the Twitterati copewith such a traumatic experience!?
Did you say you enjoy…or endure… my long comments…oh it was enjoy! You are a member of a very unique club! As for not understanding them all too well…I’m sure you are not the only one!
Even I wonder “what on earth am I banging on about now” on a fair few occasions!
July 18, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Thankyou, Bishop Nick, for your judicious comment. With Phil, I have difficulty in seeing how it is possible to reconcile the totally conflicting demands that are being made. Equally, while I recognise the call for better understanding between the parties, it strikes me that they understand each other all too well but don’t like what they understand. For my own part, I find the whole notion of ‘taint’ that has been introduced deeply repugnant. I fully appreciate the damage that might well follow if there is a schism but might there not be an equal amount of damage if the current level of conflict continues? If we are to hold the whole together, we may have to think of a very different and radical solution. A draft Code of Practice should certainly be brought to the November synod.
I do think that there are serious flaws in the way the CofE’s governance works. While I am sure the Bishops acted consitutionally, I am not sure that it was wise or helpful in the event. It is perfectly possible to be both collegiate and transparent. In three cases recently – the Covenant, the response on gay marriage and women bishops – the HoB has shown itself out of kilter with the rest of us. I think that it would have been helpful if the debate and the reasoning behind the HoB’s amendment had been public, rather than just being presented as a fait accompli so that we could see how and why they had reached their position. The same applies to the response on gay marriage. I someimes think that the Church House bureaucrats behave like a collective Sir Humphrey. We are now in a situation where the authority and standing of the HoB is seriously questioned. I think our governance needs overhauling to recognise changed circumstances. Digital discussion and the rapid transfer of information has totally changed things. We rightly need to know why and how all bodies, but primarily the HoB, reach decisions.
July 18, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Daniel
Can I just reach out across the blogosphere and give you a huge virtual hug. That is a brilliant, extremely eloquent and very insightful comment. I agree with every word you say.
Given that we are in the 21st century, the lack of openness and transparency in the governance of the Church of England at present is deeply worrying, and even the more “progressive”, Bishops seem intent on keeping it that way, which I find both mystifying and deeply worrying in equal measure.
If I want to find out how a Bishop has voted in the House of Lords I could probably find out pretty easily. If I try and find out how a Bishop, or a member of the House of Clergy or Laity has voted in a debate at General Synod, as far as I am aware I am not able to. Why such levels of secrecy? How am I expected to cast my vote effectively and appropriately when voting on whether to replace an existing Gneral Synod member (either clergy or laity) with someone else who I believe to be more more suitable, if I do not have any idea of the way they vote on issues about which I feel strongly?
I think it is really sad when you say that the authority and standing of the HoB is now seriously being questioned, but it is very true. Although there are other factors which have contributed to this situation, the HoB itself must shoulder a large proportion of the blame for the situation which has developed.
The vote itself on women Bishops shows that the Church strongly feels that the nature and composition of the HoB itself is in need of urgent reform, and as you say, I think it can be fairly argued that a comprehensive overhaul of our governance is indeed necessary.
Individually I feel that there are a number of outstanding/excellent Bishops in the Church of England (both Diocesan and Suffragan). ..Collectively, I am very sad to have to state, I am not sure the same can be said.
July 19, 2012 at 8:49 am
Daniel
“For my own part, I find the whole notion of ‘taint’ that has been introduced deeply repugnant”.
The notion of taint was introduced at the time flying bishops were introduced, because every single serving bishop provides the sacramental assurance Anglo-Catholics need and the question of sacramental assurance only really arises with the first female bishop.
The idea that “you don’t believe as we do, and if you ordain women, your ecclesiology no longer matches ours and we can therefore not be in communion with you” (which is how FiF people are currently explaining the PEV system over on Thinking Anglicans), is nothing more than the idea that the thoughts or actions of a bishop can taint your purity.
I cannot imagine how this system ever came about, but it certainly not new.
July 19, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Thankyou, Phil, for your kind words. I agree that there are some excellent Bishops but I still think our governance needs a radical overhaul. Yes, Erica, I was aware that taint came in with Flying Bishops. If you look again, you will see I used neither ‘now’ or ‘new’ but I could have worded my comment more felicitously.
Bishop Nick reminds us of the central importance of the vocation of the church to live in the light of the resurrection. I hope it is possible to find wording that will square the circle in November. None the less the current disputes are preventing the church from living out its vocation.Truth must always trump unity. The difficulty is that there are several truths and the gulf between them now seems unbridgeable. I do feel that, if in November it is not possible to square the circle, for the sake of the church’s vocation it will be time to think about a prayerful and orderly separation. Schism is a brutal word with its implication of cutting but churches have survived schism.
July 20, 2012 at 12:25 am
Daniet
You are not “me in disguise” are you by any chance?
I have thrown in the names earlier on in the discussion of Henry VIII, Martin Luther, and the Wesley brothers. I think the motives of the latter two were far purer than those of Henry VIII mind you, but the church not only survived schism, but grew and flourished after they had made the decision to break away. And as I said earlier, I think it would be a brave person to argue that they were operating outside ofn the will of God in bringing about schism and breaking away in the way that they did.
Both Luther and the Wesleys were reluctant shcismatics but there are times, as you say, when it seems the only real and sensible solution to an insurmountable and increasingly intractable problem.
By the way like you I do not think it is merely the HoB which needs, as you say, radical overhaul…I think the whole system of effective synodical government needs forensic examination, real scrutiny and, in a number of areas, serious reform if it is to be genuinely fit for purpose and properly equipped to meet the immense challenges and exciting opportunities which everyday life in the 21st century presents.
July 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Phil,
I don’t want to hi-jack Bp Nick’s blog. No, I am not you but I live in Lancashire. I think the way the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are good models. It is worth remembering that the SEC does not grow out of the CofE. The Scottish Reformation was very different from the English one. Our governance needs to take account of an intelligent and well-informed laity whose leadership and cash is ever more important. Perhaps establishment is a barrier. The phrase ‘two integrities’ doesn’t mean a lot to me and I don’t see how they can honestly exist side by side in the same church.
July 22, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Aologies Bp Nick. I typed and sent the provious message earlier today just before rushing out to help set out the chairs/get things ready for our Sunday miorning service and it consequently conatains a fair few typs. Here is how it should have read.
Daniel.
At the risk of, as you say, hijacking Bp nick’s blog, the points you raise are too important to ignore. I am now convinced you are my previously unknown long lost twin brother living not too far away from me in Merseyside up there in Lancashire…especially given the fact that when I was born, Liverpool was still officially in Lancashire!
“Our governance needs to take account of an intelligent and well infomed laity whose leadership and cash is ever more important”
Another very well observed comment. I do think that there are many clergy around who are both secure enough in their own role, calling and identity, and visionary enough to truly engage in authentic shared and collaborative ministry between ordained and lay leaders.
However, I am to say something which may get me into hot water, but I personally believe out of the many roles a priest has, their primary calling is to “equip the people of God for works of service/ministry”, which covers many areas including leadership. The calling to remain lay is equally as important a calling as the one to the ordained ministry, and as the majority of people in the Church remain lay, it is vital and crucial that they are offered the chance and the opportunity to exercise a fulfilling, rewarding and fruitful lay ministry.
An equipped, enabled, able and gifted congregation should surely be every clergyperson’s dream, but unfortunately sometimes if feels that some find such a prospect undesirable. There is the added onus on the laity to remain humble, grounded and respectful, but often lay people have very demanding and challenging jobs, involving leadership at quite a high level, and sometimes struggle with the way some churches, and indeed Synods, are led and run at times.
It is noticeable that just this last week, the Church of Wales has produced a report advocating much more emphasis on developing lay leadership, and the Methodist Church, in an admirably radical move, will shortly publish guidelines for lay people who preside at communion…(I can hear the seismic Anglican shudders from here, though I do know secure and envisioned clergy who are fully in favour of it…especially as it would help to resolve a fair few problems preety quickly ie the shortage of priests in rural areas for example.)
I think that the pattern of Methodist ministry, much less bound up in priesthood in favour of leaders first and formemost as as ministers, lends itself more readily to the concept of lay presidency being accepted, but it may well come one day in the Church of England, though I am realistic enough to accept that it will probably not happen during my lifetime!
But you are right Daniel. An intelligent and well-informed laity that has much to offer the Church of England in terms of contemporary leadership and authentic collaborative ministry, and which fully recognises the calling of both the ordained and the laity to their respective ministries including the area of leadership, is in my opinion the best way forward
July 24, 2012 at 2:50 am
mabelwatson.co.uk…
[...]Ahead of the debate… « Nick Baines's Blog[...]…