Andrew Goddard writes: This article, building on my earlier account, explores issues surrounding this week’s public meeting of the House of Bishops to consider the Crown Nominations Commission’s (CNC) discernment process for diocesan bishops. Although that meeting was welcomingly transparent, the discernment processes leading to the proposals supported by it were much less so. Four areas are explored:
- how the debate was generated and the supporting paper was produced;
- who was and more significantly who was not involved in its formulation and the consequences of this for whether it was fit for purpose;
- the relationship of the College of Bishops and House of Bishops; and
- the disregard for the proper place of General Synod.
Building on this and the processes’ consequent inability to discern the nature of the real problems that need addressing, the substance discerned is then also analysed including consideration of:
- prior work in this area;
- the dangers of acting at speed under pressure;
- the partial correction of false claims but continued unsubstantiated undermining of confidence in CNC; and
- an illustrative example of the serious problems that arise in relation to two of its central recommendations.
In conclusion, it is noted that all this means that there has been no proper analysis of the real problems in order to ascertain whether there has been a failure in discernment and if so why and what therefore should be done. In fact, there are twelve features in the processes which have so far been undertaken concerning the work of CNC which point to a significant failure in episcopal discernment with potentially serious negative consequences for future CNC discernments and the life of the church more widely. It appears to be another badly-managed and ill-conceived initiative that will only deepen our divisions, diminish trust and respect, and make the good working of CNC and Synod even more difficult to achieve in the future.
On Wednesday this week (18th September), very unusually, the House of Bishops adhered to the principle in its Standing Orders that “the public shall be admitted to all sittings of the House” (SO 13) rather than immediately going into committee under SO 14 and so excluding public and press. This followed the publication, last week, of the paper (HB(24)30) the Bishops discussed and the proposed agenda with the final Order Paper appearing the day before the meeting. What triggered this surprising embrace of transparency is a sense of crisis among many concerning the discernment processes of the Crown Nominations Commission particularly given the failures to nominate in Carlisle (Dec 2023) and Ely (July 2024) but also claims about discrimination against women and supposed widespread lack of confidence (see my recent discussion here, and in more detail, here).
As reported in an official press release, and more fully in the Church Times, the House passed a motion (by 27 votes to 9 with 3 abstentions) which had been proposed by the Bishop of London as amended by the Bishop of Oxford:
That this House, regretting [originally “acknowledging”] the difficulties in the recent CNC processes as set out in HB(24)30 welcome the recommendations as set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 of that paper and request that work be undertaken to bring the proposals to Synod.
The House rejected two other amendments, another from the Bishop of Oxford which would have added an additional recommendation to go to Synod (noted below) and one from the Bishop of Rochester which welcomed “the work that has been done” but requested “further work be undertaken on the causes of these issues, in consultation with the central members of the CNC and others involved in its work and drawing on the insights of GS 2080 Discerning in Obedience and GS2202 Responsible Representation, with a view to presenting recommendations to General Synod in due course” (defeated 13-24-2).
How were the recommendations discerned?
The transparency about House meetings is sadly likely to be short-lived and notably did not extend to the discernment processes that led to the paper being discussed. The meeting was—also very unusually—required because, under SO 3, the Archbishop of Canterbury as Chair of the House has to convene a separate meeting of the House upon “a request in writing signed by not less than six members of the House”. It was stated in the meeting that in fact 13 bishops (not identified other than the Bishop of Oxford) had made a request. However, the exact details of that request (for example whether it included a request for the detailed proposals to be prepared or simply for a discussion of the situation) are unclear other than there being expression of a desire “to consider the current challenges facing the Crown Nominations Commission” (HB(24)30, para 1). It is likely that this was made shortly after the failure of the Ely CNC to nominate a candidate which was announced on 15th July. The following four elements of what appears to have happened (and not happened) next in order to discern the next steps now being taken forward are noteworthy.
First, the Bishop of London was asked to prepare a paper to assist the House. In so doing “advice was sought from the Advisory Group for Appointments and Vocations” (AGAV) which she chairs. This “endorsed the need for action to be taken and considered the potential proposals outlined in this paper” (para 1). The very existence of this group was news to many people, including it appears in the very highest echelons of the church. When I Googled its title on first reading the paper the only result was the paper itself. The Church of England page on “Archbishops’ Advisers for Appointments and Vocations” makes no mention of the group. Annex 3 lists its 6 members and Annex 4 makes clear that they are all simply appointed by the two Archbishops without wider scrutiny or accountability and that they have no particular responsibilities in relation to CNC. The members themselves also have little or no experience of the working of CNC, indeed the two bishops and Dean are specifically chosen as “not normally involved in discernment processes”.
The paper’s description of the role of AGAV is carefully phrased. It was approached for “advice” and “endorsed the need for action to be taken”, an uncontroversial conclusion given the levels of anxiety and concern. However the members only “considered the potential proposals outlined in this paper”. They did not, it appears, “discern” or “develop” them or “endorse” them and nor did they it seems produce or sign off the published paper. This raises the questions as to how the proposals were discerned (some of which have been proposed before and defeated by Synod, many of which are novel), who in Lambeth Palace and Church House produced the paper, and what degree of scrutiny they have undergone given the short time-frame of only 58 days, from mid-July to mid-September, between the announcement about the Ely CNC and the publication of the paper online.
Secondly, this raises the question as to who was aware of and involved in the work that led to the paper other than the Archbishops and the members of the AGAV and what ability and authority they have to pass judgment on the CNC discernment processes. In particular, what part (if any) was played by
- the Prime Minister’s and the Archbishops’ Appointments Secretaries. It is clear from references to him by two bishops in the debate that the latter, Stephen Knott, played a significant role and has made statements to bishops that have helped undermine confidence in the CNC’s discernment process. It is not clear whether, given that it is the Crown Nominations Commission, the PM’s Appointments Secretary was consulted or involved in drafting the paper
- other members of CNC, particularly those who served on the Carlisle and Ely CNCs that failed to nominate. The lack of evidence of their input, the report’s concluding paragraph stating that “a formal proposal would be developed for consultation with the CNC Central Members at their next meeting with the Archbishops in November”, and the wording of the Rochester amendment all suggest that they (apart perhaps from the Archbishops) were purposefully silenced and excluded from the discernment process as to how to understand and respond to the concerns being raised.
Without proper input from these people, however, there can be no reliable knowledge of the specific discernment processes that have led to 6 (likely now 7) successful nominations and 2 failures to nominate under the current CNC. Remarkably, the Bishop of London is reported as admitting that
it was possible that the failures to appoint in Carlisle and Ely were actually an example of good discernment.
This raises the question as to the evidential (rather than anecdotal) basis for there being discernment failures on which such radical recommendations to changes in the discernment process are being proposed.
In fact, it is strictly impossible to determine the exact nature of “the current challenges facing the CNC” (the apparent concern raised by bishops triggering the report and debate) or to ascertain “the difficulties in the recent CNC processes” (the wording of the motion) without talking to all those involved. Without the input of those involved in the discernment it is impossible to know whether there have been failures in discernment and if so why and what actions therefore might need to be taken to address those challenges and difficulties.
A number of speeches warned about the need for deeper understanding of the problems. This included one by the Bishop of Bath of Wells who replaced the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Carlisle CNC and described it as “traumatic” for those taking part, thereby making clear such decisions are never taken lightly by anyone. It is important to note that out of the 29 voting CNC members in the two non-nominating CNCs (in Ely the Archbishop of Canterbury only attended the final meeting and so another bishop attended the shortlisting—a disjunction that cannot assist shared discernment although no mention is made of this in the report) there were only 3 voting members involved in both CNCs. This suggests these were quite distinct and unique discernment processes with any failures unlikely being resolved simply by changing the voting rules. It also means that all but one of the serving central members have been through this “traumatic” experience. The Bishop of Bath and Wells—the only CNC member involved in either of the two failures to nominate who spoke other than the Archbishop of York (a number CNC members—including I should note, for the sake of transparency, my wife, Lis Goddard—were in the public seating) warned
I think we need time to really think this through before taking this step.
What is more, unless the strict confidentiality of CNC deliberations has been formally loosened (or disregarded by the Archbishops or their Secretary), nothing of substance can be said by the only people who know what happened about the discernment processes in specific CNCs. Yet without that basic information any proposals to address the challenges and difficulties, particularly those as radical and with such major long-term consequences for the church, must be suspect. Changing the rules to reduce the number of CNC members who need to agree to a nomination clearly makes securing nomination easier. This in turn make it less likely there will be failures to nominate. But that does not mean that better nominations will be made, that the reasons for those failures have been addressed, or crucially that the discernment processes will be improved. This is implicitly acknowledged in the Bishop of London stating that it may be the case that the failures to appoint in Carlisle and Ely were actually examples of good discernment.
Thirdly, for understandable reasons it was decided that the requested separate sitting of the House should take place during the scheduled meeting of the College. It is not unusual for the House to meet separately after or during such meetings but what is unusual here is that the College discussed the working of CNC immediately prior to the House meeting. This partially helps explain the astonishing original plan to timetable only twenty minutes of episcopal discernment in a 35 minute meeting of the House for a debate on this crucial question: there had already been some considerable time in the College giving the matters consideration. It may also explain the unusual public nature of the meeting: either members of the College would have to withdraw from a meeting for the House to discuss and vote alone or if they were to remain then the public, including the press, would have to be allowed entry.
As with the LLF processes, however, this raises important questions as to the relationship between the College and the House, their respective roles in formal decision-making, and the concerns of some that the House is increasingly being sidelined as the established synodical forum of episcopal deliberation and discernment and being pressurised by the use of debates and indicative votes in the wider College. It is also astonishing that requests by current CNC members to be able to attend the College and so at least hear the concerns raised about their discernment processes by those with little or no experience of them were rejected.
This is despite multiple examples in the past of the College welcoming guests whose work or concerns were being considered (“no talking about us, without us”) or whose input was believed to benefit the bishops. See for example this short testimony in the crucial and highly confidential and contentious LLF episcopal discernment process and when I was on the earlier LLF Co-Ordinating Group I attended several College meetings to explain how we were working, hear feedback, and answered questions as we sought to discern, together with the bishops, the content of the LLF book and other resources.
Fourthly, it is not just questions surrounding College-House relationships but questions of how the House of Bishops and General Synod relate to each other which are also raised by the process. The CNC is a Commission of the Synod (SO 136(1)) and strictly speaking their working is not a matter in which either the House or the College of Bishops has any formal standing. As the Bishop of Winchester made clear from the chair at the start, “The House does not decide for the CNC: that is the job of the General Synod.”
What is more, as acknowledged in the paper (para 11), under SO 136(4) The Crown Nominations Commission “must report to the Synod from time to time as it deems expedient on matters of general concern within its area of responsibility”. It would therefore appear that the proper process when there are “challenges” and “difficulties” in relation to discernment is for the CNC (the only body with knowledge of the facts) to report on these to the General Synod for them to respond. It is not proper discernment for one senior bishop, as a result of a request from a number of other bishops to discuss a matter of valid concern, to offer their own perception of the problems, draw up extensive proposals, take advice of a hitherto unknown group lacking CNC experience, and then ask the College of Bishops to discuss the matter and the House of Bishops formally to welcome the hurriedly-developed recommendations and bring them as proposals to Synod. It is not surprising that at least some bishops, according to the Church Times,
urged a slower approach which did not erode trust with the appearance of an ‘episcopal power-grab’.
What does HB(24)30 discern?
As highlighted in the Bishop of Rochester’s amendment with its references to “Discerning in Obedience” (GS Misc 1171) and “Responsible Representation” (GS 2202) and discussed in more detail in my earlier longer review there has in reality been more careful and detailed scrutiny of the CNC and its various discernment processes and subsequent changes in these in recent years than in any other period of the Commission’s existence. The amount of time and work spent on these contrasts starkly with the amount of time and work which lies behind HB(24)30.
It is clear that for some in the church there is indeed a sense of “the urgency of the situation caused by what has happened” (para 9) particularly in the two CNCs that did not nominate. There are however multiple examples in church and national political life of the dangers in rushing to introduce significant changes in a community’s life in such circumstances. There is so often a need to be seen to be doing something in response to widespread but not necessarily valid or well-informed concerns about a situation. Those in leadership are often anxious or angry about actual or simply perceived failures and the outcry that has arisen. They may be frustrated at being unable to achieve their own goals and want ways of doing so more easily. They also easily fall into the trap of believing that it is so obvious what the problems are and how they should be addressed that there is no need for real discernment which involves taking time, consulting, and making proper enquiries as to the real problems and best solutions.
In addition to dangers of unforeseen consequences, our responsibility to trust in God and carefully discern together what God may be saying to us though these recent developments in CNC and through what is happening in the wider church at this time should stand as warnings about the lack of wisdom in rushing to act on the basis of little or no clear evidence. There are many who see the issues addressed in the proposals as addressing the symptoms not the causes of our problems. As someone put it recently, they are focussed on trying to replace a dripping tap rather than paying attention to the massive leak elsewhere.
Part of the problem is that, to extend the water imagery, ever since the current CNC was constituted and the balance of central members elected by Synod shifted to a more conservative stance compared to previous elections, we have also seen the release of toxic waste or sewage into the system seeking to undermine them by suggesting they are undermining the discernment process. Although not highlighted in the report itself, Annex 1 of the report confirms the argument I advanced that there is in fact no evidence that the current CNC’s nominations after discernment demonstrate a bias against women. It shows that 33% of nominations by this CNC have been women compared to 31% of the previous CNC and also shows that 17% are UKME/GMH compared to 13% of the previous CNC. Last week the CNC for Coventry met and the lack of any announcement implies this has made a nomination. If it is a man then the % of women nominated by this CNC will fall to 28.6% but if it is a woman it will rise to 42.9% (which means that even if the next 2 appointments are all men that would only return the proportions to the reported 33%, still slightly higher than the previous CNC). The figures for GMH would similarly shift either to 14.3% (still higher) or 28.6%. It must not be forgotten that, contrary to the caricatures being circulated of a conservative cabal controlling CNC, between the two failures to nominate the CNC (with the same pool of central members) nominated a GMH woman (Sodor and Man) and a man who signed the letter supporting clergy in same-sex marriage (Exeter).
Sadly, many people, including within the hierarchy, have given credence publicly and privately to the claim that this CNC is failing in its calling to discern and is hostile to women candidates. They have thereby helped create the lack of trust that is now feeding a sense of crisis. It may be too much to hope for an apology but at least this canard should now finally be put to rest and attention given to ensuring the current welcome but marginal improvements in representation are increased. There may, however, be yet further misrepresentations that now need to be challenged as the CofE press release quotes the Bishop of London as saying in the debate that
There is a lack of diversity on the CNC, including gender, race, and theology, which has led to a loss of trust in the process.
The reality—as Annex 2 of her report makes clear—is that among the 10 central members all duly elected by General Synod there are 7 women, 1 GMH (both the lay members who are no longer serving were also GMH) and a significant diversity of theological perspectives present. In fact, the different voting patterns on LLF between bishops and the clergy and laity who elected CNC members rather suggests that it is the current House of Bishops (and even more the College) that is an outlier in terms of representativeness and the outcomes of its discernment processes.
While showing the falsity of claims about clear opposition to nominating women, the report does repeat strong but unsubstantiated allegations and claims about “lack of confidence in the CNC process from across the breadth of traditions in the Church”. It also fuels a “perceived fear across the breadth of traditions in the Church” that what we have is not “a discernment process under God” but “one of pre-judgements, tribalism or politics” (paras 9 and 10). This account of CNC’s work is a very serious charge to raise against those faithfully serving on the CNCs. Comments during the public House debate further undermined confidence. This included both the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Peterborough making public an apparent stated lack of confidence in the current CNC’s discernment by the Archbishops’ Appointment Secretary.
It is also not clearly the case that “lack of confidence” in CNC discernment and “fear” of pre-judgements are found “across the breadth of traditions in the Church” (other than that there are at least some people in each tradition that might share them). Among evangelicals, for example, there are obviously concerns about the failure to nominate and about some of the CNC (and wider church) processes but not of the kind reported or addressed by the Bishop of London or taken into consideration in formulating proposals. The report claims not “to impugn or question the individual decisions of individual members” and helpfully acknowledges
the prerogative of each individual member of a CNC to vote according to conscience in the way that they believe is best for the witness of the Gospel in the diocese being considered (para 8).
However, respectability is then given to such charges of failure in discernment. The recommendations in effect are based on them being accurate given the acceptance that the failures to nominate have not been explained and may even have been the right outcome. Doing all this without even talking to those involved and without providing any evidence in support, cannot but “impugn” and “question” CNC members and risks amounting to a process of institutional mudslinging and scapegoating by the bishops.
There is not time or space to examine and comment on the various proposals being made or on that proposed by the Bishop of Oxford of using
a panel comprising (for example) the Archbishops and the five most senior diocesan bishops (by length of service) if the CNC does not select a name
(defeated 14-19-8 in the House vote according to the Church Times). These proposals include:
- removing the secret ballot (rejected by the last Synod after concerns about pressure, particularly from the Archbishops, being put on those in the minority);
- enabling abstentions which could reduce the number of votes needed by removing any abstaining members from the pool that has to achieve a “super-majority”;
- giving the Presiding Archbishop an additional vote after 3 votes between the final two candidates failed to cross the threshold;
- a Code of Conduct for CNC members;
- “the mandated resignation of the Central CNC members should they fail to make a nomination on three occasions during a five-year term”; and
- preventing any parish from having more than one clergy and one lay member on a diocesan Vacancy in See Commission and then more than one member on a CNC.
They will, one hopes, be subject to serious scrutiny, over the months that lie ahead given that they seek changes to long-established procedures and touch on such fundamentals as the place of secret ballots and the importance of “one member, one vote”. One illustrative example of their effects is, however, worth highlighting.
It is claimed that under the proposals there would still be “a super-majority” were a nomination to proceed with the support of only 8 of the CNC members (which could, in theory, be the Archbishops and all the central (or all the local) members) rather than the current required support of 10 (which requires at least 2 central or 2 local members for any nomination). A vote of 8-6 is in fact the lowest majority vote possible in a group of 14 members. However, the effect of the recommendations in paras 12-14 that the Bishops have now welcomed is that a nomination would become possible on such a split CNC by the giving of an extra vote to the presiding Archbishop and the lowering of the threshold to 9 rather than 10. One of the stronger arguments being made against the current system is the fact that it requires just over 71% (10 out of 14) and not simply two-thirds. It is being claimed that the proposals are simply:
Reducing the threshold required for a nomination to 60 per cent of those voting, also removing any abstentions from the total.
However, in this scenario (as acknowledged in a technical discussion in para 12 of the report) the 60% level would in fact fall to 53.8%. This is one of the many areas where there appears to be a need for much greater “paying attention to power” in the proposals and how they have been discerned.
Professor Iain Mclean’s detailed expert report on voting procedures noted that
The two-thirds requirement has an ancient pedigree in church elections. It has been used for papal elections since 1179…In theory, election of a pope is a judgment as to the will of God, and should therefore be conducted by unanimity (as in the modern Quaker decision procedure…) (Report on the Crown Nomination Commission’s Electoral Procedures, 2.10, 2.11).
He also noted that “all the votes in this election stage are of equal weight” and thus
discernment assisted by the 2/3 rule should ensure that the needs of the diocese and of the wider church are both given consideration (2.12).
He therefore recommended “no change to the CNC rules or practice”. None of these factors are addressed in what is being proposed. Rather than offering analysis as to why it might be that two recent CNCs have “not been able to reach the level of consensus required to nominate a new Diocesan Bishop” it is simply assumed that changing the voting procedures is the solution to an alleged failure in discernment.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the lack of a sufficient majority in the Carlisle and Ely CNCs so close together raises significant questions. It is also clear that the working of CNC’s discernment processes and perceptions of them have caused significant distress particularly to those applying for posts. There is also however no doubt that there has been no proper analysis of the real problems in order to ascertain whether there has been a failure in discernment and if so why. Why not, for example, appoint someone (such as Professor O’Donovan and/or Aidan Hargreaves who chaired the recent working groups on CNC and/or someone of similar standing) to talk in strict confidence to all those involved in Carlisle and Ely about what actually happened? Why not similarly consult with local representatives of some of the now 7 CNCs which have successfully nominated (do bishops and others lack confidence in those CNC discernments?) to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of recent discernment processes?
Instead of doing serious work, what we have seen is a discernment process about CNC which is:
- led by the Archbishops, certain senior bishops and the bishops detached from Synod;
- marked by great speed (less than two months over the summer);
- showing little or no regard for serious theological and practical work undertaken in the recent past (the two recent reports on CNC’s working);
- apparently unaware or unconcerned about what is currently not properly known and understood (given confidentiality of CNC discernment processes);
- unwilling to hear from those involved (serving CNC members);
- giving credibility to unsubstantiated and contested claims about the nature of the problems (e.g. casting doubts on genuine discernment and suggesting a lack of CNC diversity);
- failing to consider key features of the wider context (notably LLF and concerns about (archi-)episcopal abuse of power);
- not addressing obvious potential difficulties in implementation of the recommendations and likely unwelcome consequences (e.g. further erosion of trust, Synod likely to lack solid consensus in their favour);
- involving the bypassing of standard processes (CNC reporting to General Synod as per Standing Orders);
- seemingly driven by a knee-jerk reaction to deep disquiet and disagreement in the church over a matter of great importance to our common life (nobody questions the need for reflection and reforms only the pace and lack of reflection);
- seeking to secure pre-determined contentious ends which overturn well-established ecclesial practices (all members’ votes are equal and the need for two-thirds support which protects both central and diocesan members and ensures new bishops have confidence their appointment has wide support; dioceses discerning who should represent them in the processes); and
- using novel and dubious procedural means (a paper produced with minimal consultation and scrutiny being brought to the College and House to undermine confidence in the working of a Commission of General Synod and then propose major changes to it).
It is hard to see how this can represent anything other than a significant failure in discernment and in proper and due processes when considering such complex and serious matters as the discernment and election processes for the nomination of bishops. Without providing any substantive evidence for the assertion, a former CNC member recently described the current CNC as a
grotesque failure of a process taken over by a group…wanting to gerrymander the composition of the House of Bishops…The members of the CNC who thwarted the process played no part in any discernment process.
The problem is that this view has gained wide currency and gone unchallenged (or worse been supported at least tacitly) by the Archbishops and some bishops and by the paper discussed this week. The danger now is that many in the church will, for the reasons outlined here, see this as a much more valid and accurate description of the developments of the last two months leading to this week’s debate. As a result, the course now supported by a majority of the House is for many what in fact embodies a failure to discern and a desire to gerrymander.
All this is set in the context of both PLF/LLF (marked by remarkably similar process failings and possibly itself one factor in some of the CNC problems as its Lead Bishop noted in the House debate, although it is nowhere mentioned in the report) and the growing recognition of the severe erosion of trust, especially trust in leadership which is genuinely found “across the breadth of traditions in the Church”.
There is, therefore, a real risk that what the House of Bishops has now unleashed represents yet another badly-managed and ill-conceived initiative that will only deepen our divisions, diminish trust and respect, and, despite the stated intentions, make the good working of CNC and Synod and confidence in CNC discernment processes and nominations even more difficult to achieve in the future.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the 2023 subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.
Buy me a Coffee
As a point of information, the above-mentioned Stephen Knott underwent a wedding ceremony with a Major General Alastair Bruce at least six months before Welby made him the Archbishops’ Appointments Secretary:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9870065/Newly-wed-Major-General-Alastair-Bruce-reveals-toughest-battle-hiding-true-sexuality.html
And of course you think anyone who is a practising homosexual should be seriously punished.
I never gave you my answer to that question, because you didn’t deserve it.
Was God wrong about it in Leviticus?
I don’t think God can be wrong – that’s a category error. I think the writer of Leviticus was mistaken.
You said you dare not give the answer as you would be accused of hate crimes. Quite a different thing, and the implication is that you are in favour of punishment.
I will respond further when you cease to be anonymous.
>>I think the writer of Leviticus was mistaken.<<
The Gospel isn't inerrant or Divinely inspired?
If you draw that implication, it is yours. I said that I refused to answer a question to which one possible answer may fall foul of hate speech legislation which you support (hence my ‘don’t deserve’).
As I have said, no Israelite who feared Jehovah would put words into His mouth that were no His, and no Israelite who didn’t fear Him would bother. That is why we can safely take the “I am Jehovah” statements which bracket the Levitical laws in question as His word. That and a traditon which all believers – Jews and thjen Christians – accepted for 3000 years until liberal ‘theologians’ turned up.
“The Gospel isn’t inerrant or Divinely inspired?”
Divinely inspired is one thing. Inerrant is quite another.
Inerrancy is a complex idea but one look at a synopsis of the Gospels to compare and contrast the way the evangelists present the material will show you contradictions. The genealogies are an obvious example. Contradictions and inerrancy aren’t compatible are they?
Leviticus was clearly compiled by various writers. All divinely inspired. All fallible human beings
Re the genealogies, it is possible for one man to be descended from another down more than one line. Also, ‘begat’ may miss out a generation.
I have found that if you assume scripture to be true and suppose the problem is with your own misunderstanding then a way forward usually emerges. This is called faith.
@ Andrew Godsall
>>Divinely inspired is one thing. Inerrant is quite another.<<
You think God would permit human authors, with all their limitations, yet under His inspiration, to commit error in revealing His Truth? If we perceive 'contradictions' in Scripture perhaps its because we haven't fully grasped the message. Besides, Scripture isn't simple historical fact, it's history with a theological message.
HJ considers the 'contradictions' in the Gospel accounts as evidence of their veracity. Ask four eye witnesses at a car accident what they saw and you're likely to get four different accounts. Put them together and a fuller picture emerges. However, a police officer reading these statements may have prejudices of his own and prefer one account over another so rather than follow the evidence he seeks confirmation of his own bias.
Leviticus can be read this way.
“You think God would permit human authors, with all their limitations, yet under His inspiration, to commit error in revealing His Truth?”
You mean, God makes those human beings puppets while they are writing or copying or translating? They some how become super human? How does that work?
“Scripture isn’t simple historical fact, it’s history with a theological message.”
Absolutely. It’s salvation history, Heilsgeschichte. So some of the actual historical facts might not be infallible, or literally correct.
Andrew Godsall has no way of deciding which parts of the Bible are right and which are wrong other than hs own prejudices – an inability that is particularly concerning in regard to supernatural events. Yet both the vigin birth and the resurrection are in that category.
The whole idea that the bible is either right or wrong is such a total misunderstanding of what scripture is about. A complete category mistake.
The virgin birth and the resurrection are part of tradition. Scripture is one of the title deeds of our tradition. Those two supernatural events happened well before the NT existed. They are just recorded by scripture. They aren’t made true or false by scripture. I don’t believe them just because they are in the bible. I believe them because the earliest Christians believed them and discovered them to be true. Their attempts to capture the supernatural in words are worthy but always limited by the words they use. You can’t eff the ineffable.
Those two events in particular they thought so important that they wrote them into to earliest confessions of faith – the Creeds. I believe…..
I wondered (below) how quickly you might change your mind and reply to someone who didn’t give his full name.
If I have to choose between Jesus’ view of the scriptures of his time – as being the totally authoritative word of his omniscient Father – and your view of them (and of the NT), then Jesus’ view is good enough for me.
Anton – I too wondered how quickly Andrew Godsall would break his promise not to respond to people who didn’t give their full name to him.
I thought it would be about 4 days but he did it in three.
Andrew doesn’t grasp that we can cope with being ignored by him.
Please, Andrew: keep your word.
A while ago I read the late historian Barbara Tuchman’s fine book The March of Folly, about large organisations whcih made bad choices that were obvious in real time, and led to nemesis. Her case studies included the corrupt Renaissance papacy leading to the Reformation, the British political mismanoeuvring that led to the American Declaration of Independence, and Washington’s enmeshment in Vietnam. The Church of England in the 21st century fits the pattern perfectly.
They used to refer to the Church of England as ‘The Conservative Party at Prayer’. I am more inclined to think the C of E is now just like ‘the Conservative Party’; rudderless, drifting away from those who might support it and not knowing where to turn next.
Both the Church of England and Conservative Party are supposed to be national institutions not insular sects. The former the established church in England offering all residents of its Parishes who want them weddings and funerals and the latter a party able to appeal to more voters than any other party in the UK so as to be able to form a government with a majority.
C of E Bishops should therefore be appointed from a broad range, liberal Catholics and open evangelicals as well as conservative evangelicals and conservative Anglo Catholics
Where does Jesus fit in to all that?
This is closer to the 101st time I have asked this than the first?
The failure to answer is telling.
Jesus is common to all Christians, he is not unique to the C of E. Having the King as its Supreme Governor and being the established church in England however is unique to the C of E
Yes, but do you allow him any input in this?
T1,
I really like your answers. You make the CxE into a sort of Butlins with your, “If you don’t like Butlins you can go to Pontins, or go camping.” A mixture of Father Ted, All Gas and Gaiters; set in a Vulgarian castle with a Disney twist covered in numinous magic dust.
Steve, now you leave Father Ted. Father Dougal, that’s another matter! As for Father Jack? Well, we wont go there!
Here’s one from Fr Ted:
Father Ted: “Dougal, how did you get into the church in the first place? Was it, like, ‘collect 12 crisp packets and become a priest?’”
A magisterial analysis. I hope it receives the attention it deserves from the HoB, CNC and General Synod, as well as the wider grassroots Cof E.
Dear Ian, your comments policy above is clear that we should include ‘both first and surname ‘ ( in bold.) Is that now the case for everyone on an equal basis? There seems to be a lot of inconsistency about it and this leads to a lack of transparency. Thanks.
Tim
Ian’s policy does allow publication under a pseudonym when there are good reasons. I assume that in such cases Ian will be aware of the real identity and the good reasons. I trust Ian that he will not allow the concession to be abused.
Incidentally I am not publishing under a pseudonym – I really am named after a certain former archbishop….
I can see first and last names on the data, and have email addresses, so can contact people.
I would like everyone to use first and last names unless there is good reason.
For me as an Anabaptist, the problem here is that the whole clerical structure of the CofE is unbiblical anyway, designed for an unbiblical state church rather than the kind of Church the NT teaches.
It is frustrating isn’t it.
While I am a good Baptist, who would very much agree with you on this, there is some merit in the institution. When it works, it can work well.
Steven Croft’s book, “Ministry in Three dimensions”, has chapters on Episcope that I find very agreeable. The difficulty of course is that the opening chapter on this ‘3rd dimension’ (chapter 12) is titled “Vision, Unity and Transformation” a noble aim, and it certainly does not seem that in their ministry of oversight of this process the HoB is doing a particularly good job of any. ‘Blurred, Divided and Stagnant’ would probably be a less idealised and more accurate title. 😉
Mat
We need to continually remind ourselves that clergy are ordained within the laos not over against or above the laos. Stephen, I think I would rather put it in the plural and be more hesitant: from the fragmentary evidence there are different ways that the early Christian communities seem to have started to organise themselves in some places around the eastern Mediterraean by c AD100. I simply don’t think the NT evidence is a) detailed enough, b) consistent enough for us to use it directly to structure the church or its ministry in any era of history. But obviously others take a different view. Some general principles and some Christ-like character traits for minister, yes, but there’s no very detailed prescription for how to run a church structure or how to run things in a massively different social context. Hence the vast diversity of ways this has happened and the absence of a single ‘biblical’ model.
Tim
1) With you that ‘clergy’ – or for a less loaded word, ‘leaders’ are chosen “within the laos not over against or above the laos”.
2) Also I think with you that the NT data allows lots of flexibility – but with one key fact, a PLURAL leadership in the local congregation. And arguably that anyone on a broader level (a ‘bishop’ equivalent) should be conceived as a delegate rather than a boss/manager.
The Baptist church where I am a member is working towards building a team ministry albeit initially around a single paid pastor.
Thanks, Stephen. Agreed, but exactly what plural means, how authority is understood and exercised and how the ‘senior’ person relates to others are still going to be varied. In the C of E structure there is already plural leadership through Churchwardens and elected PCC members who share in ‘promoting in the parish the whole mission of the church.’ But so much depends on everyone acting as equal adults but with different responsibilities. In my experience autocratic clergy leadership is equally prevalent in all theological traditions including those which claim to oppose a ‘high’ doctrine of priesthood and overtly support lay ministry. Rules and structures only take us so far, character and integrity are so important.
How was the Canon of Scripture determined? By whose “authority” after 300+ years? Or the Nicaean Creed which I believe took some 400 years?
Yes well as you are a Baptist and don’t even believe in bishops and an established church let alone in the King being supreme governor of it your view on the C of E isn’t really as relevant as those of us who actually are members of the C of E
That is precisely the opposite of the truth, Simon. People do not disbelieve in bishops because they are baptists – they find that they must be baptists because they do not believe in bishops.
You are evincing a Gilbert and Sullivan view of things – every little boy or girl that’s born into this world alive is either a catholic, an orthodox, a methodist….
No, they aren’t! They can be described as one of those things later, perhaps – but they are not things one can be in essence. Whereas what you believe or think to be true is more part of your essence.
There is another fatal flaw to your model. You treat each denominational stance as unchallengeable.
I repeat – you treat each denominational stance as unchallengeable and effectively infallible.
So however absurd the denomination and its stance were, you would still be treating it as infallible.
That is why your stance is obviously wrong. The only things that are infallible are obvious and tautological truths.
And if you don’t believe in Bishops then you certainly shouldn’t be an Anglican, a denomination which very much believes in Bishops of Apostolic Succession.
That denominational stance is a truth and a key distinction between being an Anglican and a Baptist for example
Simon, Where. Does. Jesus. Fit. Into. Your. System?
And why imagine that you rather than he dictate how the system is?
You see denominations as having fallen from the sky at the time of Eden?
Do you think people are denomination members first and Christians second?
I made the point about your not addressing questions, and your response was to continue to ignore said questions. That is, to repeat, telling.
T1 – that denominational stance is not a truth because it is unbiblical. One must also I think ask what use is an ‘Apostolic Succession” which clearly is not protecting many many bishops from being unbiblical and therefore untrue about sexuality…..
No I made my point that Christianity is divided into denominations and you deliberately ignored that as you have an ideological opposition to any episcopal form of Christianity
No it is biblical and based on St Peter being tasked by Christ to lead the Christian church as first pope just again you have an ideological rejection of episcopal and Catholic approaches to Christianity based on your hardline evangelical position
The C of E is also based on a reasoned approach to interpretation of scripture and always has been
>>The C of E is also based on a reasoned approach to interpretation of scripture and always has been.<<
And yet over the centuries it hasn't quite make its collective mind up on a whole range of issues – theological, doctrinal and pastoral. The following spring to mind:
– original sin;
– atonement theology;
– interconnection between grace and faith human will;
– predestination;
– abortion;
– divorce and remarriage;
– artificial contraception;
– intercessory prayer;
– ordination of women; and
– homosexuality
And this doesn't include those bishops, vicars/pastors who question the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ.
Yes, HJ knows the Catholic Church has its "issues" but, despite its disagreements, indeed because of the resolution of past disputes, there are clear dogmatic positions on all of the above.
Yes it has, Synod has voted for women priests, women bishops and now for prayers of blessing for same sex couples married in English law and allows remarriage of divorcees in its churches too with opt outs for churches which disagree.
It doesn’t dispute original sin but it is not given strong emphasis, it believes in atonement via the crucifixion, most Anglicans believe in free will and do not require belief in predestination. The C of E ideally would prefer their not to be abortions but recognise there may be limited conditions in which it must be allowed. It has allowed birth control since the 1930 Lambeth Conference. It also has leading prayers through intercessions
Synod could vote red to be green. And in Simon’s ‘world’, red would therefore be regarded as being green.
Don’t tell me you cannot see the perfectly obvious common denominator in all this – cultural conformity?
If it was true cultural conformity the C of E would have voted for full same sex marriages in its churches. It didn’t, only prayers for same sex couples and so a few liberals like Jayne Ozanne left the C of E for the Methodists who do now allow same sex marriages in their churches
Yet Martyn Snow made it clear that a large number of bishops do want precisely that. It is only orthodox Anglicans resisting this cultural conformity which has prevented them doing so.
Has he? When and where did he do that?
The Bishops have always seemed committed to Pilling.
Christopher, re your green/red example, Ignatius Loyola actually wrote that “we should… believe… that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchical church so defines” (Spiritual Exercises, no.365)!
@ Anton
Full quote:
<blockquoteTo be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed.
St. Ignatius Loyola is saying what the “Hierarchical Church” (the formal teaching authority) decides requires the assent of the faithful. Why? Because the Church claims special expertise and God’s guidance in matters of theological doctrine and morals, i.e., matters relevant to “the salvation of our souls.”
Christopher is correct that when decisions diverge from or contradict past doctrines, this is illogical.
Jack,
The short version I gave of Loyola’s quote does not lose any of its folly in the full version.
As for “…when decisions diverge from or contradict past doctrines, this is illogical”, you might inform Pope Francis.
The new element that has changed things is cultural conformity. That is what it is. By its nature, therefore, the point is not whether there are any arguments supporting it. Rather, the idea is that people are less capable of conceiving of cultures different from their own, nor that their own may well not be the best.
It is a bit much to expect that *everyone* will be so unintelligent/weak as to succumb.
Some but even amongst the Bishops I doubt there was a 2/3 majority as required for same sex marriages in C of E churches. Even if there was a simple majority for that
@ TI
See, behind every one of your affirmations lie questions about meaning.
For example: what was the first sin and how has it affected us today? It’s at the root of our salvation history, yet you claim “it is not given strong emphasis. It informs our exegesis and theological and pastoral approaches flow from it.
The atonement – sure we all believe in “atonement via the crucifixion,” but what was it intrinsically? A forensic, legal interaction or a self giving by Christ. Was it for all, or limited? Free will – how does that square with original sin and belief in the necessity of faith and grace? What is “predestination;” it’s in Scripture?
HJ would say that our stances on these issues, whether conscious or not, explicit or implicit, inform our reading of Scripture and shape our views on homosexuality, abortion, and artificial contraception.
Jack, you have no sense of unity with those who agree with you because of scripture. Don’t divert into discussing contraception.
@ Anton
Did the CofE do a 180 degree turnaround on contraception or not? Was this a direct and somewhat controversial contradiction on its past teachings? And was this or was it not influenced by, amongst other cultural issues, the eugenics movement? Has the same 180 degree change occurred over marriage? Is it on the horizon with euthanasia? Can the Truth change from one generation to next?
Jack,
You’d bring your obsession with contraception into a thread about the ecclesiastical cricket league if you could.
The written laws of Moses provided a complete divinely scripted code of law for a nation, namely ancient Israel, which would flourish if it kept that code. Where in that code, i.e. between Sinai and Deuteronomy, is any command against marital contraception?
The Church of England re-examined the scriptures once reliable and not particularly intrusive contraception became available in the 20th century and was taken up by respectable married couples. The CofE recognised that this was a matter for a married couple. In contrast the Church of Rome, from which Canterbury had inherited its historic stance, was hamstrung by its hubristic claim that it cannot err in its teaching; it doubled down on the mediaeval argument that because contraception was unpleasant in practice and had been used mainly by prostitutes, it was intrinsically wrong. What else do you expect when a group of supposedly celibate men make doctrine, contrary to Paul’s exhortation to Timothy (1 Tim 3) that church leaders be family men?
I accept that the contraceptive pill for women has been a disaster for Western society since it became available to single women, fuelling militant feminism and, by removing the fear of pregnancy that had always been a brake on fornication, allowing single women to behave as badly as single men. The sin in question is fornication, not contraception.
Rome does accept the motivation of married couples not to have more children, because it is happy to promote abstinence during the wife’s fertile part of her cycle, and the determination of that time by the Billings method (more accurate and easier than basal temperature). Rome disingenuously calls it ‘natural family planning’, although it is overwhelmingly used by Catholic couples for contraception rather than conception, and a lot of abstinence is required. That is why many Catholic husbands and wives discreetly ignore a doctrine promulgated by celibate men. Rome has conceded that this motivation is legitimate, and means are subsidiary to motivation. What sin are they supposedly committing? If lust, why is it acceptable to make love during the woman’s infertile time? If not lust, what? Your response on another blog that the act must be “open to conception” does not address this question, nor does it state why the act supposedly must be open in that way.
I’ll answer your other questions in a further comment.
Jack,
I don’t know enough about the 1930 Lambeth Conference, at which the Church of England dropped its condemnation of marital contraception, to state whether the eugenics movement influenced it. But the timing is close on reliable and minimally intrusive forms of contraception becoming widely available, so re-examination of the scriptures was timely.
You ask: Has the same 180 degree change occurred over marriage? Certainly I applaud Rome’s condemnation of remarriage during the lifetime of a spouse, after a divorce. I have argued for that understanding of the scriptures elsewhere on this blog. Rome’s condemnation might carry more force if it didn’t allow ceremonies such as Boris Johnson’s third marriage in Westminster Cathedral, however.
Euthanasia is a great and coming evil. Hopefully Rome and Canterbury will join forces against it, althogh I wouldn’t bet on either nowadays.
Not sure I agree with you here. I find it helpful to listen to friends from other denominations who challenge me and so make me think about my views more rigorously, and sometimes change them. One of the frustrating aspects of the whole LLF/ sexuality / gender debate is the sense I get that some only ‘listen’ to others’ views in order to categorically disprove them and show definitively that they are in error. It is possible to hold views with conviction and believe they are well founded and at the same time acknowledge that they may, in time, be shown to be mistaken or need revision.
T1
I believe in bishops – the Bible teaches bishops/episcopoi; the snag is that the Bible’s bishops are the same thing as ‘presbyteroi/elders’ and nothing like the CofE’s regional CEOs which are not mentioned in the Bible.
I don’t believe in an established church because the Bible does not believe in such a thing and portrays a very different way to relate state and church – ie basically the church is independent of all states, it is itself God’s holy nation on earth,and it is therefore international.
The king of England cannot logically be the ‘supreme governor’ on earth of an essentially international Church. Jesus is the Church’s King…..
Oooops … I seem to have demonstrated that the CofE is so unbiblical it isn’t actually Christian anyway. Why are you in an unChristian church??
Supreme Governor is precisely that, not leader of the Church which is the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the object of worship which is Christ. The C of E was created by Henry VIII precisely to have him as its head on earth not the Pope, if the Reformation had not occurred the C of E and indeed global Anglicanism would never even have existed and our national church would still be the Roman Catholic church with evangelicals like you in the Baptists or Pentecostal churches etc. There would be no C of E middle ground
T1
It is still the case that as the NT does not teach established churches there is no Biblical basis for Henry or any of his successors to be Supreme (earthly) Governor or anything similar in the international ‘kingdom not of this world’ that is the Church. It was sheer arrogance on Henry’s part to claim authority to establish the church by English law.
You seem to miss by the way that Henry did not set up a Reformed church (that came later under Edward and then Elizabeth) but rather a non-papal catholic church. And that orginally Henry’s church was totalitarian – the first mention of Baptists/Anabaptists is a group from Holland who were burned at the stake – is that really the kind of church you support…?
It is still the case that you are a nonconformist. Now we may no longer make nonconformist worship illegal in England as was the case until the 1689 Toleration Act and Baptists may not be burned at the stake but nor do nonconformists such as you have any business trying to interfere in the business of our established church.
The C of E was created by the King at the Reformation to be our established church. Today it remains a combination of non Papal Catholics such as myself and Reformist evangelicals all within one established church under the authority of the King.
@ TI
Question: where does Scripture say it alone is authoritative or sufficient for the faith? Or that all truth would be written down before the death of the Apostles?
Answer: it doesn’t.
Jack
Kind of right – but if we are seriously following Jesus then the scripture account shows him heftily backing scriptural authority and rejecting for instance human traditions outside scripture. If we ignore that we will effectively be making Christianity up to suit ourselves – not a very useful idea….
The Bible is of course not ‘complete’ – but it is the standard by which we can judge other ideas which may be offered.
@ Stephen Langton
Thank you for your reply.
There is a distinction between Apostolic Tradition and human tradition. Jesus was critical of the Pharisees because they held authority (they were in “Moses’ seat”) but self aggrandising and heaped unnecessary human laws on Mosaic Law. They also closed their minds to the fullness of God’s revelation in Him to hold onto power.
How do we avoid “making Christianity up to suit ourselves”? By understanding Scripture from within the living Apostolic Tradition of the Church.
The first Christians did not have the New Testament, but they were not without guidance. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that they “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42). The Bible is true, but not all the conclusions’ people draw from it are not necessarily right.
In (John 5:39). Christ states a fact. “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” The ones to whom Christ was speaking had searched the Scriptures in the sincere belief that they would learn all that was necessary for eternal life. Yet they had not arrived at the truth.
Scripture is materially sufficient – every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. The message of the Berean’s is against an individual reading of Scripture, separate from the Church that leads to insight. The lesson is that the Apostolic Church that is the guide for Christians; not an individual reading of Scripture, separate from the Church; the Apostolic Church is
the guide. The response of those who met the Risen Christ applies today through Christ’s living Body, His Church: “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
There are certain untruths that produce a culture split and culture war that is (1) irresoluble, (2) incremental and progressively widening.
Has anyone ever observed the abortion wars or the gender wars do anything but worsen?
This is what comes of trying to square a circle or merge incommensurables.
The point in history we are now at is the total USA division which has crescendoed to this highest-ever point (so far), followed (as ever: meekly followed) by the UK which with ‘buffer zones’ and euthanasia is going down the same division-widening road.
LLF is part of the same thing. You can’t get people to vote for everything they most oppose.
The only way to remove the culture war, and indeed to stop the perpetual increase of the culture war – which will have very serious and unending consequences everywhere – is to remove the initial lies: abortion and gender doctrine. (And the la-la-la in the face of the destruction of that which is most precious: family.)
Just thinking about the 2/3 rule:
What would be the problem with adding a 15th member to the CNCs? That would mean 10 votes gets you to a clean 2/3 of the CNC.
That indeed seems to me to be a serious alternative change to consider. The problem is that it would imbalance the central/local balance which currently is 6-6. Currently each CNC can co-opt a member but they are non-voting so it does not imbalance but also does not help with the current bar being 10:4 so quite a bit more than 2/3 as 5 can block 9. Stupid thing is that when they changed the process for Canterbury they ended up with 17 members so exactly the same problem needing 12:5 so 6 can block rather than 18 members when would need 7 to block as 12:6 would get over the bar.
I’m not sure why a central/local balance is that important, when I’d have thought the 2 Archbishops look fairly central to me. If it were up to me, I’d be ok with an extra local member. But if it’s really a massive problem for people then you can round it by adding 4 members taking the total CNC up to 18 members (2 Archbishops, 8 central and 8 local). Or alternatively shrink the CNC down to 12 members (2 Archbishops, 5 central and 5 local).
‘Central’ is only meaningful if all issues are on a single spectrum. As each issue, and each aspect of each issue, has its own spectrum, that is not even close to being the case. Then there are the people who think for themselves – who ought to be prioritised, and if they were prioritised as they should be, then their nuanced and original stances would make the whole idea of any spectrum to be seen as the joke that it is.
It seems sometimes as if there is only one spectrum, but that spectrum is merely how far people are able to resist culture in cases where it is appropriate to do so.
Sorry, misunderstood use of word ‘central’.
Sounds like a good idea. As long as it wasn’t another bishop!
I look forward to someone offering amendments when this eventually makes it to Synod…
Does anyone know the factors taken into account, and the weigh given to each, in the discernment process?
Who decides? Human Resourses? Surely, in todays equality driven church, there’s such a professional branch. There seems to be, after all, if I recall correctly a Trade Union for clergy?
But it was those pesky Methodist, Tolpuddle Martyrs that started all that nonesense off so beneath the established regal church.
And now that we’ve moved away from the tribalism of head-hunting, and passing through the shodows of the favouritism of cronyism.
Does anyone know the factors taken into account, and the weight given to each, in the discernment process?
Who decides? Human Resourses? Surely, in todays equality driven church, there’s such a professional branch. There seems to be, after all, if I recall correctly a Trade Union for clergy?
But it was those pesky Methodist, Tolpuddle Martyrs that started all that nonesense off so beneath the established regal church.
And now that we’ve moved away from the tribalism of head-hunting, and passing through the shadows of the favouritism of cronyism, surely there is a points based weighted system.
After all didn’t Jesus have his clipboard assessment tool as he wandered around the environs.
While there is this convoluted process of choosing Bishops there appears to be no clear- cut way of removing them.
There is of course a sub text to all of this.
The last 30 years in the CofE has seen the rise in confidence and proportionate numbers of Conservative Evangelicals. A number of things have assisted that. Firstly, the collapse of the Catholic movement. That was caused partly by the ordination of women, but also the crisis of vocations that has also meant a collapse of the Parish system and Parish Communion. Evangelicals want ‘worship’ and not the Eucharist. They don’t care about confirmation. They want to reform Infant Baptism. They want ‘leadership’ and not Priesthood.
Then 20 years ago their confidence was seriously boosted by their campaign to remove Jeffrey John from his nomination to the episcopal See of Reading. It was successful and the bishops have been scared of Conservative Evangelicals ever since.
Conservatives are highly organised and have packed General Synod with candidates of their own liking, such that Synod is not at all representative of the CofE at large. That is also reflected now in the CNC, and conservatives are quite determined at blocking the nomination of bishops who they don’t consider ‘sound’ on the big question of LLF, which is by no means settled. So the proposals that the bishops will bring to GS will struggle to find passage through that body. Conservatives will vote against anything that weakens their rising power.
The CofE used to be a broad Church. That breadth has gone, and with it the numbers of those who attend the CofE has plummeted. Confirmation numbers have fallen to almost nothing. Bishops loved Confirmations and have been diminished by that loss as well as the loss of candidates for ordination. They have been forced into a management style because of serious financial struggles in almost every diocese. It has been about managing decline overall, but also managing the war at the heart of the CofE. It will be, as more than one bishop has said to me, a fight to the death.
Andrew, you might as well ask, ‘Who started this war at the heart of the CofE, and who is determined to keep it going?’ Who has been pushing the LLF stuff?
As for the other matters you raise:
1. Was it wise to push Anglo-Catholics out of the Church of England when everyone could see that would happen? Is the Church of England better off without them?
2. Has the ordination of women rejuvenated the ministry of the Church of England, as I remember people telling me it would, back in 1992, bringing in dimensions that were absent in male-only ministry?
3. Why are the majority of ordinands today female? Is British Anglicanism unappealing to men?
4. If liberalism is intellectually, morally and spiritually superior to evangelicalism and catholicism, why aren’t the liberal churches and colleges overflowing? Or could it be that in a Britain where the majority of indigenous white young people profess no religion and Christianity is now a minority (for the first time since probably the 8th century), liberal religion seems unnecessary and irrelevant, as well as lacking depth and motivational power?
James thanks for your reply. Each of your points would require a blog post each. That’s Ian’s domain. I was trying to focus on why Andrew is really concerned, in this article, about why the proposals concerning the CNC are deficient.
Further, I have now decided I am only going to respond to people who provide a full name. If I am going to provide mine, then that is only fair. Unless you have a very good reason for withholding your name, you are anonymous and I don’t think it is sensible to respond to anonymous comments.
That’s your prerogative, Andrew. I can probably cope with being ignored.
As I have said to others here, if you would like a more direct conversation in which we can respond in turn, then I’m very happy for you to e mail me.
I don’t need a private correspondence, Andrew. You ask questions or express viewpoints on a public forum, intending to reach anyone who cares to read Ian’s blog. That means it invites a public response. Whether you care to respond is entirely up to you.
Thanks, that’s no worry. It was just an offer.
I will respond happily to questions here from anyone who isn’t anonymous.
Well, James, HJ thought they were all jolly good questions and deserving of answers!
Jack – I agree they are good questions.
But unless James or you have good reasons for remaining anonymous then I don’t think it’s an equal correspondence. As I have said to James, do feel free to e mail me if you wish to engage with these questions or disclose full names so we all have a measure of equality.
Is Andrew making this response because he has no adequate answers to James’s questions?
Very happy to answer all of James’ excellent questions either by e mail or publicly here when he drops the anonymity. Same for you Anton. As a policy now I will not respond to questions from anyone who is anonymous. It creates all kinds of problems….
If my identity is known I can’t see why some others wish to remain anonymous.
Andrew – you could fix this by using a pseudonym – for example you could call yourself Rev Dr Charlie Manson (always a good name). Then you would feel it was a level playing field and you could respond to all these excellent questions to your heart’s content.
Jock: I happen to think that Ian’s comments policy is absolutely correct. I haven’t always been a good follower of it but I think the use of pseudonyms and anonymity encourages unpleasant exchanges.
Thanks though. If James is really interested in the answers to those questions, he can easily go public.
James presumably has his reasons, which he does not owe to you. Evangelicals might wish to take advantage of the open goal you are leaving before you revert.
James does have his reasons and he isn’t obligated to Andrew in any way. Personally I am happy not have him commenting on my views or on the views of Anton, Jock, Geoff or most other commentators here. I think he will find it difficult to keep his word. But I hope he will.
Plenty of Anglo Catholics now support women priests, the most hardline Forward in Faith anti female ordination group left for Rome years ago. Indeed, even Ian Paul on here and many conservative evangelicals now support female ordination even if they opposed PLF. Women priests also tend to be engaged in their communities and are trusted by families to be with their children which is a good thing given sadly the minority of male priests who were involved in sexual abuse cases in both the C of E and Roman Catholic church
I doubt all those named support ‘priests’ at all, so you are on that point wrong. Very many (the NT among them) believe in only two types of priest in the NT age – the High Priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of all believers.
Once again there is this odd putting of the cart before the horse, as primary documents are seen as of no importance, but (as for the Samaritan woman at first) ‘what people say’ in one’s own limited milieu takes precedence for some unaccountable reason.
Well the C of E obviously does support priests and Bishops of Apostolic Succession too, core defining parts of what defines Anglicanism
Lol.
You are a C of E fundamentalist.
Either you believe in the infallibility of the C of E (an untenable position), so that its stances do not even need defending (sic);
or you are a relativist (another philosophically untenable position).
Which of these two untenable positions is it that you are attempting to hold?
I suspect they will support “priests” unless they’re rejecting the Book of Common Prayer
Exactly, the BCP is the defining feature of Anglicanism and the King as its Supreme Governor as established church the defining feature of the C of E
But here’s the problem, Simon: the BCP is NOT the “defining feature” of most Anglican churches in the world (it doesn’t have legal status as the arbiter of doctrine or worship) and the King is definitely not their Supreme Governor. So by your terms, all the other Anglican churches in the world are not Anglican. So you are a Church of England fundamentalist. Why? Do you think the Church of England is the One True Church? Not even the Church of England believes that!
Why are you a C of E Fundamentalist?
Anglo Catholics and lovers of the Parish system and confirmations and other sacraments now though have formed their own block ‘Save the Parish’ under the leadership of Marcus Walker of St Bartholomew the Great. Marcus has already been elected to Synod as have a number of other Save the Parish candidates and the aim is to push even harder to get Save the Parish candidates elected at the next Synod elections and start to push for more central funds going to Parish level rather than just church plants and mission schemes on the evangelical side and wokeist things like ‘net zero’ and slavery reparations which liberal bishops want.
Conservatives while a strong block on Synod are also not the majority, otherwise PLF would never have got a majority of Synod behind it
Conservatives are probably not the majority in the House of Clergy because the Anglo-Catholics have largely disappeared because of women’s ordination and many hundreds of women, including retired teachers, have been ordained to NSM ministry, accentuating a leftward shift. Iimagine many small parishes are maintained this way. People down in Canterbury tell me that is how some parishes are staying afloat (including some that can’t pay their parish share), and I’ve seen this in Yorkshire as well. All clergy, whether stipendiary or NSM, can vote for the House of Clergy, so its more liberal character reflects this fact. At the same time, the number of stipendiary posts has declined dramatically in the last 20 years. There is no limit really on how many NSM posts are created as thry don’t really have budgetary implications. Churches like St Helen’s Bishopsgate are creating and funding posts but these men are not ordained (yet).
The C of E faces a major crisis in ministry over the next five years as great numbers of stipendiary ministers are due to retire while those in training have fallen as much as 40%. By 2027 we will see how things are panning out.
Indeed but PLF even passed the House of Laity as well as by bigger margins in the Houses of Bishops and Clergy. So even amongst the laity conservatives do not have a majority.
In terms of ministry yes self supporting ministers are filling the gaps, especially amongst those who get ordained once retired. The C of E could also use some of its millions in investment to increase stipends for its priests which would attract more candidates and then they could use further funds expand training places accordingly
T!
Perhaps Ian could confirm – on what basis are the ‘House of Laity’ chosen? Do they truly proportionately represent the numbers overall, or are they on a ‘per church’ basis such that conservatives may be under-represented?
Stephen the voting for GS laity membership is by Deanery Synod. And each Church gets an allocation of deanery synod members *based on the size of their Church roll*. So larger churches get more votes.
Anecdotally it is thought that laity in the CofE are generally much more liberal than the leadership. When people like me suggest that we need to ask all electoral roll members of the CofE to vote on LLF as a way to break the deadlock, conservatives resist the idea very strongly as they know they’d loose.
@ James
Sounds a bit like the American voting system – except one assumes ‘dead’ folk can’t vote – in the spiritual and not the physical sense.
Jack, as you probably know, evangelical parishes are usually the largest by attendance in the C of E, but I couldn’t say how many congregants care to join the electoral roll. Evangelicals are also fairly weak in their ‘Anglican’ identity, and there can be a good bit of traffic between Vineyard-style churches and the local evangelical parish. Musically and ‘liturgically’ there is often not a lot of difference between them, while liberal Anglican churches usually follow a conservative liturgical model.
James,
Isn’t a key point made by Andrew Godsall, though not necessarily the conclusion he draws and it is the system of “church rolls” how they operate.
I was on the roll of a CoE, where the ‘membership’ was largely in the ‘social status’ category.
A friends mother was on the same roll, and the mother was appalled to hear the conversion of a local gangster; she wouldn’t want to go the heaven if he was there, let in.
I returned there a few weeks ago for a funeral of an older sister in the Lord. Not all who were there were on the roll, but the few who were, were in their late 60’s into their 70’s even 80’s. It is in 13 Century building.
The building will outlast the rolls in an atheist locality.
Is there any research on the demographics and beliefs of current, up-to-date CoE church rolls?
Do Vineyard churches and new plants keep church rolls?
And if churches don’t pay their assessed Dioses share, does it impinge on their synod laity numbers.
In the local liberal dioses, the total number of children, youngsters, is dire, calamitous. There are more in our church than in the totality of the dioses.
A fight to the death?
Whose?
Compounded with a ‘withering away’!
Whose church is it?
Who shall prevail?
The C of E shall prevail and all churches who pay parish share, any which try to leave legally are obliged to return the building to the diocese. I don’t know how you measure an ‘atheist locality’ anyway? In my experience the highest percentage of the local population who attend C of E churches tend to be in rural areas with the oldest churches and they are the bulk of C of E rolls. Some inner city, suburban and large commuter and market town evangelical churches may have large congregations but overall the percentage of the local city or suburb population who attend a C of E church will likely be less than in a village or hamlet
T1
The national church which is actually attended by about 2% of the population, and is split down the middle by people who have no respect for the Word of God but only for their man-made ideas has no chance whatever of meaningfully ‘prevailing’. It may get somewhere useful if it pays attention to its own standards of the Bible as ultimate authority, and returns to Christian beliefs including seeking disentanglement from the state.
Every week, more than that at Christmas and Easter and significantly more than that still are married in, have their children baptised in or have their funeral in their local C of E Parish church. It is not split down the middle by anyone, Synod voted by comfortable majority in all 3 houses for PLF.
The C of E was set up precisely to be the established church and be assured we members of the C of E certainly ain’t being dictated to by Baptists like you who don’t even believe in infant baptism and the BCP let alone PLF. You stick to your Baptist church and your rejection of any form of recognition for same sex couples married in English civil law based on your particular interpretation of the ‘Word of God’.
You may no longer be thrown in jail for worship outside the C of E in a nonconformist Baptist church as you would have been until 1689 but what you do in your Baptist church is now no business of the C of E anymore than the business of the C of E is no business of Baptists like you!
So the C of E is a sect for Anglicans and not everyone? Not what you have said elsewhere: you seem to think the C of E has some duty to everyone living in the parish, whether Christian or not, at least as far as baptisms, weddings and funerals are concerned. But that isn’t actually true.
And you don’t seem to have kept up with the actual figures for church weddings and baptisms in the C of E. In 2023 only 8% of children born that year were baptised in the C of E (in 1920 it was 72%). Most church weddings are held in parish churches but most weddings are not religious now. A d the church with the highest attendance is the Roman Catholic Church. What does this tell you about establishment?
T1
Will probably say more later but most people of my kind of beliefs do recognise the civil law implications of same-sex marriages; it would be impractical and heartless to do otherwise. It remains the case that such marriages are in disobedience to the Word of God. Voting by a comfortable majority to disobey God is not a good move for a Christian church.
No it is the established church, that is precisely the point, not a sect for hardline evangelicals. As established church yes the church offers weddings, funerals and baptisms to all residents of its Parishes who want them.
8% is of course 4 times the 2% figure Stephen Langton originally quoted for C of E involvement. C of E weddings are also many times 2% too. The Roman Catholic church was of course the original established church until the 16th century, indeed without the Reformation the established church would be the Roman Catholic church still
Did the C of E vote for same sex marriages in its churches like the Methodists? No. Only prayers for same sex couples
T1
I quoted the 2% figure because reasonably regular attendance will mostly imply fairly serious ‘involvement’; turning up for social rituals like baptisms, weddings, and funerals but not attending otherwise hardly constitutes serious involvement and/or a valuing of Christian fellowhip! And even then a figure of only 8% for baptisms is verging on laughable for a supposed ‘national church’….
The CofE is not a sect for hardline evangelicals – nevertheless its official formularies do specify the Bible as the source of the Church’s beliefs and imply a goal if necessary to make changes to conform those beliefs to the Bible. Even by implication if those changes included establishment itself….
I find it puzzling that you are Anglican after your constant references to the primacy of Peter as ‘Pope’.
Recalling an occasion on another forum when Anabaptist me turned out to accept far more of the ’39 Articles’ than liberal Anglicans on that forum, suspect that might also be true of the BCP – that I would be happy with more of it than ‘liberals’…..
“The C of E was set up precisely to be the established church” Agreed – but it was set up by a despotic king of dubious morality, and in defiance of how the Bible actually teaches Church and state should be related.
As of now the CofE has only voted for ‘prayers for same sex couples’; but there seems little secret that many want the full marriages. And if the ‘prayers for same sex couples’ imply approval of a sexual relationship they would still constitute deliberate disobedience to God and a lack of meaningful faith in Him.
Stephen, T1 (Simon) is a Church of England Fundamentalist. He cannot explain why he is one, he just seems to believe that Henry VIII was guided by God to re-establish True Christendom in England and that members of other churches are inferior, and perhaps not even Christians.
Simon seems to think tbe Church of England can determine Christian doctrine by itself. Nobody in the C of E believes this.
His beliefs are not those shared or taught by the Church of England but are very idiosyncratic. He thinks he is a Catholic but is in fact an English Nationalist.
James – on the whole, I think I probably agree with T1’s perspective. The starting point here is infant baptism. You guys (Anglicans) agree with it. I saw one of the contributors here, who comes across as a quiet conservative evangelical, write that he became an Anglican x years ago – and then became a Christian at some later point (say 7 years later). I therefore infer that membership of the C. of E. does not depend on first coming to believe in Him; for the Anglican one does not first come to faith – and then join the church. You do not first ask people to proclaim their faith, or assent to the Apostles creed, or anything at all like that. But these members (those who became Anglicans because their parents had them baptised at birth) have every right to think of themselves as Anglicans, it is their organisation, and they have the right to take it in whatever direction they see fit.
If you really want the C. of E. to be an establishment for the faithful, for those who have come to believe in Him, then a good starting point would be to dump infant baptism and require a profession of faith from those who are admitted to membership.
Jock, did Jesus enjoy a perfect relationships with his Father before he could speak?
Ian – the answer, of course, is yes, but this isn’t relevant to baptism. As I understand it, Jesus was baptised at the age of 30.
He was circumcised at birth – and that didn’t seem to work out so well. It was a membership ritual for a church where he didn’t seem to get on very well – to such an extent that Caiaphas, their equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, wanted to kill him (John 11:49-53).
Indeed but dumping infant baptism would make the C of E a Baptist or Pentecostal church in all but name, the Anglo Catholic wing of the C of E would not accept that
Paedobaptism and Establishment go together: you are baptised not into Jesus Christ but into a national religion. You are confirmed into Christ later in a rite which cannot be fond in the New Testament. If necessary we can do the paedobaptism discussion, although there are webpages dedicated to that.
The coronation service itself makes clear the King is anointed monarch by God and thus also to be Supreme Governor of the established church. The C of E has its own liturgy as well as the Biblical doctrine it shares with those of other Christian denominations
The king appoints the bishops and a bishop anoints the king. Little to do with God.
T1
https://stevesfreechurchblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/but-seriously-5-the-divine-right-or-wrong-of-kings/
More nonconformism from you
Jesus was a non-conformist. He got baptised at the age of 30 – and had terrible fights with the established church (John 11:49-53), leading ultimately to the crucifixion – so historically the best people have been non-conformists (and have suffered for it).
So he could have got baptised at birth instead?
By what means?
Christopher – we should also wonder about the credentials of John the Baptist. He wasn’t ordained and he hadn’t been consecrated by some bishop.
Reminds me of that pastor job application joke where such as John the Baptist and the Lord were firmly turned down on the basis of their profiles.
Turning up for baptisms, weddings and funerals and Christmas and Easter but not regularly the rest of the year is what you would expect many Parishioners in the established church to do.
8% is also 4 times 2% and the figure is higher still for weddings and funerals so hardly laughable and to be ignore.
The C of E is a church which interprets the Bible via reason, it is not a Baptist church which takes everything in the Bible literally (otherwise it wouldn’t have women priests and bishops and allow remarriage for divorcees beyond spousal adultery either, yet most C of E churches already do both).
Anglican churches are churches of apostolic succession like the Lutheran churches and Orthodox churches as well as RC churches so the primacy of Peter as first Pope is relevant to them, especially we on the more Anglo Catholic wing of the C of E (Anglo Catholics include conservatives not just liberals of course). There is still not the 2/3 majority required for same sex marriage in C of E churches due to opposition from those conservative Anglo Catholics as well as conservative Evangelicals on Synod
Hi T1…
Sorry, sort of, but as an Anglican Christian for about 60 years and ordained for 46 years I do not recognise much in your definitions of “Anglican” as, err, actually Anglican.
I’m glad that Baptists take the bible literally. So much better than literistically. Though don’t you know that they also shelter a number of (shorthand) biblical liberals? As do most of those denominations you dismiss.
I’m glad to work with a godly faithful church of any variety. Do you think there’s only going to be Anglican described Christians in in heaven? Lampstands can be removed…
No but I assume heaven will have an Anglican section, not far off the British Kings section…
Does Henry VIII have his own section?
T1 – you wrote above
“More nonconformism from you” -ie from me, Stephen Langton. OK- I don’t conform to your version of the CofE. Though as I’ve pointed out I actually conform better to the official 39 Articles than many ‘liberal’ and ‘catholic’ members of the CofE do…!!
Whereas your version of the CofE (in any version a modern institution only going back about 500 years), appears to be extremely non-conformist to the original teachings of Jesus, the actual founder of the Church, and the original teachings of the actual Apostles in their actual original writings commonly known as the New Testament. Can you really not see the absurdity of that??
‘I don’t conform to your version of the CofE.’ You don’t conform to any version of the C of E, you are a Baptist not an Anglican!
And what of me, T1? I take a congregation-by-congregation view of church and I attend a nearby Church of England congregation because I consider it the best near me (partially because the vicar would never put two persons of the same sex through a wedding ceremony). No doubt you think I should leave for a Free congregation, but because the CofE is the Established, i.e. the ‘default’ church, ther would be nothing you could do if you were my vicar or bishop. The problem is yours.
T1
Despite being Baptist I actually conform to more of the CofE’s official beliefs than do many who are members, even many clergy. As a long-time reader of CS Lewis I guess I go with his idea which he variously expressed as ‘Mere Christianity’ or ‘DeepChurch’ – the common ground which is huge, rather than the divisive and marginal seen among ‘liberals’ and ‘Catholics, especially where such stuff actually disagrees with the NT. What is the use, for instance, of a claim to ‘Apostolic Succession’ which leads to people in the modern world who in practice disagree with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles found in the NT?
No C of E vicar can put 2 persons of the same sex through a wedding ceremony, only say some prayers for the couple
If you don’t believe in bishops of apostolic succession and the King as head of the C of E you reject many of the key principles in the Articles of the C of E and the BCP for starters
You don’t seem to understand that belief is based on evidence. You think people can make a position statement assertion and that counts as a belief.
If people make a position statement assertion they have given no evidence that they consider and can argue that there is more evidence in favour of the stated position than of other competing positions. They therefore cannot be said to believe it until they have done that.
Yes, T1, I do reject many of the principles of Anglicanism. But it still runs the best congregation near me, so I go. If I had to pledge allegiance to the bishop then I’d quit, but because it’s the Established church nobody requires me to. This might be a problem for the Established church and for you, but not for me. I am simply conforming to my own ecclesiology, which I regard as scriptural: take Christ’s church congregation by congregation.
Likewise, on another blog I had an exchange with a Catholic who was offended because, in eastern Europe where I was staying with a Catholic, I told the priest I was protestant and asked if I could nevertheless share Communion. He said Yes and I did. The priest took the attitude that all Christians had suffered under communism and were in it together. He had more sense than his superiors, and more sense than the chap on the blog, who censured the priest and who kept trying to censure me. But it wasn’t my problem.
Simon, do you think Anglicanism is infallible?
If not, what are its flaws?
Do you think that no one has gone through a full-immersion baptism and later realised that they hadn’t actually given their lives to Jesus?
But otherwise… You might give Anglican evangelicals a bit of credit by thinking that they might have thought Infant Baptism through and still think it a biblical position to stand on…. for the last 400 years or thereabouts. It would be the same people who often practice a baptismal policy which helps applicants to think the issues through before the “plunge” is taken.
There’s a couple of good Grove Booklets which wrestle with the issue. And movements for reform to minimise poor-use/poor understanding have long been around.
Now to Bishops… One diocesan bishop who supported it’s reform seemed to change his mind when he became Archbishop.and seemed hardline the other way. “Odd” is a polite analysis.
T!
On interpreting the Bible ‘literally’ (and with ‘reason’), I’m not speaking for every Baptist but most Protestants traditionally have taken an attitude similar to what I expressed in this blog piece ….
https://stevesfreechurchblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-brief-word-on-biblical-interpretation/
Students in the evangelical Christian Unions at universities would in my day be broadly in agreement with the late JI Packer (an Anglican) in his book “Fundametalism and the Word of God”, where I found the Tyndale quote used in the blog.
My vicar gave me advice about being challenged by the Anglican selection process in the early 70s…
“If you are accused of being a fundamentalist.. Reply that you believe in the fundamentals of the Creed”. (not exact after all these years but near enough to make the point).
The Church of England combines Catholic Christian and Reformed liturgy and practices, it is not a purely Protestant church
Not so. It is a Protestant and Reformed church, as was made clear in the coronation service, and is evident from the BCP and 39 articles, which in law determine its doctrine.
Being Protestant means being a reformed part of the church catholic; it is not in opposition to ‘catholic Christianity’ as you imagine. Protestant churches say the ecumenical creeds.
The Nicene Creed ‘ “We believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church”.
Article XXVII ‘ The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.’
It is a Catholic but Reformed church
No. It is a reformed part of the church catholic. Being Reformed is not something different from being catholic.
T1/ Simon:
No, you haven’t grasped the reformed nature of tbe Church of England and its founding document, the Book of Common Prayer. As a reformed church, the Church of England does not deny the validity of other churches, including those that do not have episcopal ministry. Nor does the Church of England accept non-scriptural traditions or teachings as doctrines that must be received as Catholic truth, such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary or prayer to saints, whereas you must affirm these teachings in order to be Catholic. Every doctrine in Anglicanism has to be supported from Scripture, not from Tradition. The Church of England isn’t simply the Roman Catholic Church with married and female clergy and communion in two kinds. Read the Thirty-Nine Articles carefully and you will understand these things better.
The catholicity of the Church of England consists principally in affirming the truth of the Apostles’ Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) and the Chalcedonian Definition. The Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists also accept these Trinitarian and Christological confessions, so they are Catholic Christians as well.
The Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists don’t have bishops of apostolic succession like the Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Some parts of the C of E eg the Shrine of our Lady of Walsingham would certainly accept the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary or prayer to saints
‘Some parts of the C of E eg the Shrine of our Lady of Walsingham would certainly accept the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary or prayer to saints.’ That is only because quite a few people who attend Anglican churches either don’t know or don’t believe the doctrine of the Church of England.
I am not sure what this proves.
Some people believe in flying saucers, too. Catholicity depends on the faith in your head, not the hands placed upon it.
In T1/Simon’s thinking, the Rev Dr Billy Graham was not in the true apostolic succession, but Bishop Jack Spong was.
Hmm.
I was never sure if I believed in “apostolic succession”. But thinking of Bishop Spong (and Bishop Jefferts-Schori), I remembered that Judas also was an apostle.
Though oddly people seem to have been much more relaxed about Spong being a bishop than they were about Jeffrey John being a bishop.
AJB writes: “Though oddly people seem to have been much more relaxed about Spong being a bishop than they were about Jeffrey John being a bishop.”
Not in America, they weren’t. And nobody in England thinks TEC is a real church – more a kind of religious cosplay for rich WASPs.
It doesn’t say “Roman Catholic”.
Catholic = Worldwide.
It’s an emphasis on The One Church of God not a denominational sub-group.
One with all those pesky Methodists, Baptists….
Doesn’t mean opposition to catholic Christianity for some. Adherence to catholic Christianity is difficult to square with beliefs like limited atonement for example.
In this context ‘catholic’ is a word which, like ‘gay’ in modern English, has over the years changed its meaning. Orginally the word means ‘universal’, as indicated by its roots ‘kata holos/according to the whole’. As applied to the Church. this indicates two things, that it is the universal truth, and that it is ‘for everybody’. Crucially the Church, available to everybody, is actually according to the NT entered by a voluntary act of faith.
However in the late 300sCE as part of the hijacking of the Christian faith to be an Imperial religion, ‘catholic’ acquired a slightly different ‘spin’; it came to mean what in modern English we call ‘totalitarian’ with a conformity enforced by holy wars and by heresy-hunting as per the RC ‘Inquisition’. This continued for many centuries, and was difficult to counter precisely because of the secular coercive enforcement; the upheavals of the Reformation created space for many Christians to re-examine this and re-assert to varying degrees the original voluntary nature of the Church. Most thoroughly this was seen in the groups now known generally as ‘Anabaptists’ – Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites and others, and more recent movements like the 19th C ‘Brethren’.
In the Reformation era, Anabaptists could be caught by heresy-hunters because in saying the creeds they would not use the word ‘catholic’ or its local language equivalents, eg ‘gemeinde’ in German. Modern English practice is often to avoid the word ‘catholic’ which these dayscan be confusng as it has almost entirely a sectarian meaning of ‘the RC church’, and substitute the word ‘universal’ in the sense of the early centuries CE.
Effectively the word ‘catholic’ from c400CE onwards was actually an expression of a heretical view, in contradiction of the original meaning and implications. As founded the CofE was ‘catholic’ in the heretical ‘totalitarian’ sense, and it’s continued adherence to an unbiblical status of national establishment makes it still uncomfortably ambiguous.
The Nicene Creed is not heretical.
No, he did not say it was.
AJB
Having been produced before the change of meaning of ‘catholic’ that I referred to,, the Nicene Creed would not originally have been heretical. But it would be heretical to interpret the creed according to the later meaning of ‘catholic’ as what we now call totalitarian.
As I said, because ‘catholic’ these days tends to refer to only one ‘denomination’ of Christian, fussier Anabaptists will prefer the alternative (but totally accurate) rendering of ‘catholic’ as ‘universal’ to avoid confusion
Well… I’m not sure that’s completely accurate.
The division in law between catholic and heretic began with Theodosius’s Edict of Thessalonica (only the catholics, defined by their belief in the Trinity, could call their buildings churches) in 380. The next year in 381 the Nicene Creed was finalised and promulgated, with it’s four marks of the Church: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. St Cyril of Jerusalem, who was there, is quite clear in his writings that the name Catholic Church and its cinclusion into the creed was to draw a distinction with other “churches”. Catholic does literally mean universal or general – the whole faith, for everyone – but it has also always been a marker of distinction from other heretical churches.
AJB
a quick google shows the term was used at least in the early 2nd century CE (c107) when it couldn’t carry the ‘totalitarian’ spin in relation to the state. It acquired that implication by c400CE.
One link I discovered was this
https://aleteia.org/2023/10/16/why-catholic-a-brief-history-of-the-use-of-the-term.
I think the point I made can broadly stand….
One of the ironies is the thought that in this context the late Ian Paisley was in effect a ‘catholic’ as he believed in what amounted to an enforced state church discriminating against dissent….
But c400 is when we get the Nicene Creed in its current form in circulation. If your argument is that it’s at this point the term “catholic” becomes heretical, I don’t understand why you don’t think the Nicene Creed is part of that alleged heresy.
AJB
You may be right – I did a quick check which gave the date of the Nicene Creed as 325CE; I didn’t realise that the word ‘catholic’ was an addition in the 381 amendment. That puts it right on the cusp of the change.
Because it is thus on the cusp, it is I think ambiguous. It adopts an already existing word which meant simply ‘universal/for all’, but within the next ten years the imperial church and the emperors, Theodosius at first, were definitely interpreting it with the ‘totalitarian’ and coercive spin. Paganism had been increasingly discriminated against over the previous decades after Constantine. It can probably therefore be argued that the 381 version of the Creed intended the ‘totalitarian’ interpretation – in which case by the standards of the Bible itself, the Creed would be heretical. Full, as they say, stop!!
Ironic or what? But perhaps not surprising that Creeds sponsored by an imperial church in the interest of secular state unity and of God being ‘on the side’ of the emperors would end up supporting an unbiblical entanglement of church and state, and an un-Jesus-like coerciveness.
The Creed remains I guess acceptable IF AND ONLY IF the earlier interpretation of ‘catholic’ is followed; but is definitely heretical if the later interpretation is used.
You’re taking a mark of distinction – this person is catholic, that person is not – and infusing it with your own accusation of totalitarianism. But that isn’t something peculiar to catholicism or the Roman Catholic Church. After all, Anabaptism itself hasn’t been free of totalitarian ideas – some of the earliest anabaptists were in the Munster Rebellion which tried to set up a theocratic state in northern Germany, complete with forced baptism, property seizures, and compulsory polygamy. For a long time the most liberal state when it came to allowing people to worship freely was the (very Calvinist) Dutch Republic, but even there they only allowed Catholic Churches for example on the condition that there was no indication from the outside of what they were. We need to be careful to avoid simply absorbing 18th century anti-catholic prejudices too easily – Tom Holland makes a good point about how such prejudices are still at play with atheist critiques of religion from people like A C Grayling when they blame the church for throwing Europe into the Dark Ages.
AJB
Have been wondering how long it’d take for someone to bring up Munster – which by the way is the right thing to do with it, bring it up and vomit it out….
We tend to forget that in the upheaval of the Reformation (and indeed over the next 200 years or so) all kinds of strange ideas were tried by minority groups, some more scandalous than others. Munster is a case in point – this group saw the idea of ‘credo-baptism’ (albeit very imperfectly since as you say they coerced it) but combined that with the idea of settng up a kingdom of God on earth in worldly terms like the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, using armies and other worldly force.
At the time an RC priest called Menno Simons was just about to ‘jump ship’ to the Protestant cause when his brother Peter was caught up in the wider Munster rebellion and killed at another of the rebel centres. Menno looked at this three-way mess of attempted earthly kingdoms of God – Catholic, Protestant and Munster – and thought (rather as I later did looking at the similarly murderous mess in Ulster) that surely Christians weren’t meant to behave like that. He went ‘back to the Bible’, realised (again as I did c1968) that the Bible taught a different form of state/church relationship altogether, and joined the other pacifist wing of Anabaptism where he became their leading theologian and gave his name to that wing as ‘Mennonites’.
(note that ironically – we seem to be coming across that a lot in this discussion – in criticising the Munsterites’ violence the RCs and Prots were criticising exactly what they themselves were doing; while in constantly to this day bringing up Munster against other Anabaptists they were rather dishonestly criticising the group which went the biblical route of peace and voluntarism unlike all three of RC, Protestant and Munster)
In objecting to ‘catholicism’ I am not indulging in classic anti-Romanist prejudice; I’m objecting to the way ‘catholic’ came to mean the coercive state church first in the post-Constantine imperial church and then among RC, Orthodox and Protestant successors – the ‘totalitarian’ church. Including, as I’ve said in Anglicanism which is still trying too hard to hang on to the rags of its former totalitarian status….
When you say you’re an Anabaptist, does that include traditional anabaptist believes like not taking another Christian to court for any reason, and not participating in civil government (because that is “Caesar’s”)?
Those beliefs I think would put you in conflict with the idea of a catholic faith. If the faith is truly universal, then it must be possible for everyone in the world to be a Christian. But if everyone were a Christian, how would courts and civil government function if we’re not supposed to participate, unless you’ve established a theocracy (so the government isn’t “Caesar’s”). So, not using courts or participating in civil government, assumes that Christianity is, always shall be, and must be a minority, which isn’t very catholic…
And I suppose the Bishops will say they’re not changing the doctrine of Apostolic Sucession.
Ian C
It’s a grand sounding doctrine, innit? But is it really meaningful when dozens of bishops in the present, on the line of ‘apostolic succession’, are proposing to contradict the actual teaching of the original apostles?
Ian C
And further to my initial response –
1) we currently have at least three churches claiming their leaders are in the apostolic succession, but with very different beliefs in important areas. ‘At least three’ because I’m not sure how many Protestant groups beside the CofE have such an idea, and the Orthodox are at times nationalistically divided.
2) All the groups ‘in the apostolic succession’ derive from the 4th century CE imperial Roman church, which means they all contradict the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles on church and state issues. Again, how meaningful is ‘apostolic succession’ that clearly does not result in actually obeying the original apostles and their master Jesus the Son of God?
AJB
Do what God says, leave the consequences to him…..
Or disregard what God has actually said He wants, in favour of what we superior beings think God must want….
Your choice….
That’s an interesting side-step to the question. Does this mean you do actually reject the term catholic in its pre-400 version (as you would have it) after all? Is our faith truly universal and intended for everyone?
AJB
“Is our faith truly universal and intended for everyone?”
YES – voluntarily and by the power of the Spirit to be real and deep….
Is the post-Constantinian superficial Christianisation of worldly states a good way to achieve this?
NO!!