Last Friday, the statistics unit of the Church of England released an ‘early snapshot’ of attendance figures, based on the returns from the count that happens in churches in October last year. The headline looked promising:
Attendance at Church of England churches grew for the fourth year in a row last year, preliminary figures show.
Before looking at some of the details, it is worth reflecting on this process of collecting statistics. Some will object to the whole exercise; I have clergy friends who refuse to engage in this at all, since weighing pigs does not make them any heavier. My response is: no, but weighing your pig does tell you whether it is growing fatter or thinner, and might lead you to take action as a result. Others will object to the obsession with numbers, saying that it is people and the gospel that matters. The difficulty with this is that these numbers are people, and counting them tells you about whether the C of E is fulfilling the basic mandate that Jesus gave to all his followers to ‘go and make disciples…’ (Matt 28.19). All through Acts, Luke recounts the work of the Spirit in directing, encouraging, and equipping the apostolic community, and the repeated refrain is that ‘the Lord added…the word grew…’ and so on. And for these reasons, the Archbishops’ Council expresses its goals in terms of numbers as well; it is in one sense legally obliged to do so, since charity trustees must act for the good of the charity based on evidence—and numbers are evidence.
We should also note that it is often the historic denominations, the ones most commonly in decline, who have historic central resources to undertake this kind of exercise. The ‘new’ churches don’t have the resources, and are busy doing other more productive things. This leads to a skewed impression in the media, since these new churches never send out press releases, so it is only the decline of the historic denominations which hit the headlines—though we will return to this in a while.
The full figures have previously been released in the Autumn, a full year after the numbers were counted, but for the last couple of years the early figures have been released, and these have been found to be representative of the fuller picture.
To understand the figures, you need to be aware of the four metrics the Church uses:
1. Average Weekly Attendance (AWA) The average number of people attending all services (not just Sundays) in a typical week. This includes: Sunday services, midweek services, and school services if they’re acts of worship. This is used to reflect total weekly church activity and reach.
2. Average Sunday Attendance (ASA): The average number of people attending church services on Sundays. This includes all Sunday services (morning, evening, and so on) but it excludes midweek services.
3. Usual Sunday Attendance (USA) (less commonly used today): Historically, this was a more informal estimate of how many people usually attended Sunday services. It was often self-reported or estimated, rather than calculated over specific data periods, but it has largely been replaced by ASA for more consistent reporting.
4. Worshipping Community Attendance (WC): The number of individuals (not the weekly average) who attend services regularly, not necessarily every week. It is defined as the number of people who attend at least once a month or are otherwise known to be part of the worshipping life of the church. This reflects the breadth of engagement, not just weekly attendance; it is a controversial figure statistically, but it compensates for the fact that you might have the same number of people attending, but they might attend slightly less frequently. This would show as a decline in the above statistics, even though the same number of people are coming.
So what did the figures say? Here are the summary paragraphs from the press release:
The overall number of regular worshippers across the Church of England’s congregations grew to 1.02 million in 2024, a rise of 1.2 per cent, according to an early snapshot of the annual Statistics for Mission findings.
It was the second year in a row in which the Church of England’s “worshipping community” – the combined number of regular members of local congregations – has stood above a million since the Covid-19 pandemic.
The numbers in the pews on a typical Sunday [average Sunday attendance] was up by a further 1.5 per cent to 582,000 in 2024, extending rises over recent years.
And overall in-person attendance across the week [average weekly attendance] edged upwards by 1.2 per cent in a year, and stood at just over 701,000 last year, according to the early figures.
(Note that the USA is not given here.)
The big question here is whether we are continuing to see recovery from the loss of attendance during the Covid lock down and the closure of church buildings, or whether there is a change to the underlying trend. This is best assessed when the numbers are presented graphically, as on the right—which a friend has kindly done for me (thanks Amanda!). The three graphs are plotted on the same scale so that you can compare them.
All three graphs confirm the comment in the press release:
While the overall figures show that in-person attendance has not fully reached pre-pandemic levels, the figures suggest it is moving closer to the pre-pandemic trend.
But of course this ‘pre-pandemic trend’ was one of straight-line decline. So, yet again, overall attendance figures have still not even reached the level we would expect if decline had continued at the rate as before—that is, if all our efforts in investing in church planting and rejuvenation, and having a more urgent focus on mission and evangelism and the making of disciples, had not resulted in any slowing of decline, let alone a reversal to overall growth.
That is worth pausing on for a minute to take it in. We have not yet reached the attendance numbers at the expected level of decline.
The last graph, WC, looks as though there might be hints of a change in trend. But the other two suggest otherwise; the curve since 2021 is concave, not convex or on a straight line, showing that the year on year ‘recovery’ growth is diminishing, and statistically this is what you would expect if the numbers were drifting back to the previous trend, rather than changing it.
So what is going on? There are certainly things happening in different parts of the C of E, but what is leading to this overall picture of what appears to be an underlying trend of continued decline? These are the things that strike me, and which I have gleaned from various conversations in the last week.
The first is that, with current levels of migration, the country’s population is growing but about 1% a year—so you need to knock that off these statistics to get a real sense of actual growth. Many migrants are coming from areas where Christianity is the norm, and some areas of the country, especially those with cheap and poor housing, will feel the benefit. One clergy friend, in a poor area in the north of the country, told me: ‘our own congregation had 5 or 6 GMH in 2019 and now has c. 80!’
Some anecdotal research suggests that Covid accelerated decline in church attendance particularly in white British communities, especially in the north, but that ethnically mixed areas, cities, and places in and close to London have been more resilient.
Many parishes are struggling to recruit incumbents, or are appointing candidates who are not up to the job, and whom they would not have appointed if there were a choice. Another friend reported hearing a suffragan bishop commenting about how few people were applying for posts and how the bishop had to work hard to persuade some parishes to accept a candidate who, in better times, they would never have considered. The mix of longer vacancies and fewer effective incumbents means decline; as I reported seven years ago (!) research by the Church House team demonstrates that having stipendiary ministers who are competent and intentional about growth is the single biggest factor in whether a church grows or not.
The real challenge here is that the collapse in the number coming forward for ordination training means that this lack of leadership will be felt for years to come—and the effect is probably only just beginning to bite. Perhaps those seeing the importance of lay leadership in church planting were not so foolish after all?
Within the Church, there is a huge differential in where growth and decline is happening. I know of many Anglican churches which are growing, planting, and grafting into existing churches or buildings. At our clergy chapter yesterday, many had tales of seeing people coming for baptism, both children and adults, where numbers had previously been low. And yet in other contexts there is decline and even collapse. I heard this week of a challenging rural context, where a good appointment was made for incumbent a few years ago, but this person has now left—the job of juggling a multi-parish benefice with too many buildings and little vision for growth, and with an elderly age profile, was too much. And it will be very difficult to make another appointment.
The age demographic alone in many rural areas, where church attendance has historically been disproportionately high, means that many Anglican churches will simply disappear in the next decade. This will keep a downward pressure on the overall figures—but also means that there is a radical change in the configuration of the Church of England, shifting it from being more rural and ‘middle of the road’ with large liberal elements, to being more urban and suburban, and more evangelical, charismatic, and ‘orthodox catholic’.
And if you want to see the variability across the country as a result of different diocesan leadership, just compare Southwell and Nottingham, where I am, with Canterbury. Last year, the numbers of children attending in this diocese had returned to 2019 pre-Covid numbers. In Canterbury, the numbers are 50% of what they were.
But here is the big puzzle posed by context: what about the ‘quiet revival’ and its impact in the Church of England? Why are we seeing continued decline, when there is credible news of people, especially young people, coming to faith or expressing interest and curiosity?
Some Church of England churches are certainly experiencing this—but many are not. The headlines of the C of E continue to put people off; let me give you some examples.
For some reason, while we are still waiting for the serious theological work to be done, the LLF process (looking at questions of marriage and sexuality, in case you’ve been living on Mars for the last few years) still continues on, despite having lost its key staff member in Church House. A ‘consultation’ is happening in dioceses, though it is not clear what this will achieve, and the early feedback is that it feels shambolic. And, bizarrely, the Business Committee has included in the July Synod agenda a Private Members Motion asking for the House of Bishops to remove any requirement of clergy to uphold the Church’s doctrine of marriage in their own lives—despite the fact that theological work is being done on this very questions over the summer, and that it will report to Synod next February.
Christopher Landau explains, in a Twitter thread, why this is so important with his customary clarity:
Why would clergy entering into same-sex marriages risk splitting the church, in a way that clergy entering civil partnerships has not?
First, we need to appreciate one reason why the compromise of the last twenty years or so has (imperfectly) endured. The tendency of ‘conservatives’ to assume that all clergy are living within the stated discipline of the church is (I think) a key, overlooked factor.
Ever since the House of Bishops concluded that civil partnerships were not inherently contradictory to church teaching, and thus clergy were permitted to enter them, two increasingly divergent responses have emerged.
One group continues to teach the traditional teaching of the church, and I would suggest has continued to work alongside openly gay colleagues on the assumption that there is a shared, ongoing commitment to this teaching.
Another group has tended to downplay the church’s continuing teaching on sexual ethics, has quietly ignored it, or has campaigned for that teaching to change – even though many such clergy entered training having assented to ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’.
Given the stance in ‘Issues’, it was hardly disingenuous for ‘conservative’ clergy to assume that all clergy were – to paraphrase the ordination service – fashioning their own life and that of their household ‘according to the way of Christ’.
Serving clergy entering same sex marriages (as the Jeremy Pemberton employment tribunal case proved, even as far as the Court of Appeal) would indicate a fundamental change to the church’s own understanding of its legitimate discipline.
Whatever one’s view, it is surely difficult to describe this as a minor change, or merely something that requires (as ‘Together for the CofE’ has suggested) a ‘pastoral response’.
There needs to be a depth of honesty: changing this aspect of clergy discipline would be indicative of a change in conviction about the nature of marriage. Otherwise the Pemberton ruling makes no sense.
And to change the current stated teaching on marriage would have implications for everyone, and their deeply personal decisions about what it means faithfully to live out their Christian call – not least in a culture profoundly confused about sex.
We are in danger of seeking to change pastoral practice for some clergy, without first having changed the teaching (or doctrine) that logically informs such practice. Not for the first time, I am praying for theological coherence!
Secondly, some insist on pressing issues around ethnicity by deploying ideas from critical race theory and ‘racist anti-racism’, and making claims about the legacy of slavery and reparations which do not stand up to scrutiny. So we are appointing ‘racial justice officers’ in dioceses where there is no evidence of there being an issue with racial justice, and make appointments which have been shown not simply to be ineffective but to actually make the problems worse. It is claims that the £100m being set aside for Project Spire (on reparations) is not depriving parishes of badly needed resources—when it obviously is, since this is money that cannot be drawn on. And the whole Project is clearly outwith the Church Commissioners’ charitable aims. These approaches are deeply divisive and demotivating.
Thirdly, we still have senior leaders in the Church saying things in public which are just so unhelpful to church growth and mission. This is the comment by a cathedral dean on Facebook this week:
Dear Friends, I have been reflecting on my faith, ministry and life and want to say unapologetically, that I am an inclusive, liberal, progressive, liberationist (read justice, inclusion, Liberation Theologian/priest). Jesus is my model and total inspiration. Feel free to call me woke if you wish. I seek to build bridges with all traditions and communities who seek equality, justice, peace and the flourishing of all people.
I would not claim there are no virtues expressed here. There is plenty of support for questions of justice and peace in Scripture. But it is interesting that this person sees Jesus as ‘model and inspiration’ rather than ‘Lord and saviour’. The gospel expressed in these terms looks, to many people, like a humanist, political, and left-liberal project. There is an interesting question to be debated about whether the teaching of Jesus is compatible with such an approach. But we need to note that there are no signs whatever that ‘inclusive progressive’ churches are part of this ‘quiet revival.’ As I explored with Dr Rhiannon McAleer in our discussion, the churches which are growing are those which offer a sense of experiential encounter with God—and those which offer (in David Goodhew’s words) ‘full fat faith’ which is distinctive and counter cultural, and not merely replicating a political position that people can find elsewhere.
God is doing something in our country. People, especially young people, are being stirred up to ask questions about faith. But the Church of England, through the foolishness of its leadership, appears to be doing its best to sidestep this by continuing to press divisive and demotivating issues.
Something needs to change.
Buy me a Coffee
If you extend the pre-2020 line showing slow but steady decline, in the first diagram, to 2025, the CoE is about on it. The difference is that today there is slight growth. The question is why. New converts or returners? Younger or older people, men or women? How is the CoE doing relative to Rome and nonconformism? And how different are the figures for liberal and evangelical parishes? All interesting questions!
No, I don;t think it is on that line. It is below, and still shows no signs of crossing it.
Hi Anton,
I produced the figures, hence jumping in here.
I don’t think there’s a way for me to share images, so I can’t give you the chart showing the 2024 figures alongside the projected pre-pandemic trend up to 2024; the charts with numbers up to 2023 are on page 14 of the 2023 Statistics for Mission report: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/statisticsformission2023.pdf
As per Ian’s reply, and as the press release says, all age attendance (Sunday or Sunday+midweek) remains a little below the projected pre-pandemic trend. Sunday attendance is closer to the projected trend, which might not be indicative of anything in particular, but might say something about the relative challenges of reviving Sunday and midweek worship since the pandemic.
It’s probably worth saying that the “projected pre-pandemic trend” is exactly what it says it is – it’s the pre-pandemic trend (calculated as a straight line through the 2014-2019 data), projected forwards. It isn’t a prediction of what would had happened if there had not been a pandemic. I’ve included it because I think it gives helpful context, and a straight line is a pretty good fit to that dataset, but obviously a straight line projection eventually becomes daft.
I do not have the necessary data to answer your other questions, sadly; it’s almost certainly all of the above: new converts, and returners, and people moving from one denomination to another, and people moving from one country to another, and men, and women, and old, and young (and much of this will apply to “joiners” as well as “leavers”) – but wouldn’t it be nice to know exactly in what proportions, and why?
As to parishes’ traditions, I’m pretty certain that there will be parishes of all traditions where numbers are going up, and where numbers are going down, but I’ve never seen a database of parish tradition that would let me look at this in full detail; even were I able to, I would take care to avoid saying (in the absence of good evidence) that growth/decline differences were because of the parish’s tradition, since it’s likely that many other factors are important (lay and ordained ministry provision; demography; finances; buildings; and all sorts of other things).
Very happy to chat further – contact details in the 2023 report referenced above.
Thanks Ken for the helpful reply.
It would be possible ask a question in the return on perceived tradition. We could only take notice of this as one factor in a multivariate analysis.
A very useful reply, Ken. Thanks. Are the uSA figures available?
Hi Trevor, thanks for the question. The Usual Sunday attendance figures weren’t included in the press release, but they show a similar trend, i.e. up a bit from 2023 to 2024.
A beautiful generic AI picture of an immaculate rural church without any signs, pathway, or wear and tear in front of a beautiful tree on an immaculate lawn. But where are the immaculate people? Or the AI-generated bearded clergy of all genders and none?
The sermons are often better with AI, James.
Ask AI to create an image of an bible study group and it’s pretty accurate. It knows the ‘type’ – which is to say that contemporary churches have a real problem reaching all types.
I think the Baptist Union of Great Britain keeps statistics on church growth but l can’t find the link at the moment. The overall picture is one of decline with pockets of high growth. FIEC and Pentecostal churches are flourishing.
An excellent article, covering a lot of ground.
GMH = Global Majority Heritage/UK Minority Ethnic, a Church of England term.
There is a common perception that issues of sexuality are peripheral, whereas scripturally they are central – as we know from our own experience as human beings.
The core issue goes even beyond the nature of marriage. It is sanctification:
This is God’s central purpose for us, and, as such, something that needs to be taught in the churches, with intention and with all the authority that God gives his servants. Without such teaching and without such understanding, there will be no growth of any kind, neither spiritual nor numerical.
Across the pond, here in the States a similar issue: our younger generation find the worship services boring and are not attending.
Our seniors are dying off without replacement.
But if my people will humble themselves and pray…
Thanks. Though in many churches young people are *not* finding services boring…
There has now been no tradition of Christianity for long enough that young people who wish to rebel against their parents’ (secular) generation might find the church attractive – and receive a pleasant surprise.
I think you have a good point. Once there is pure ignorance and no anti-Christian agenda because the Christians are not a force in the first place, then you assess the options and of course the Christian option comes out confortably on top. The amount by which it outstrips secularism tends to be many hundreds of percentage points on many measures – which was my argument/evidence in What Are They Teaching The Children?
My local church seems to be drawing new people, but many older congregation have died recently. The church is open all day for visitors and many write in the book how good it is to have a church open all day. There are sessions for toddlers each week and a monthly tea and cakes for the older generation, with concerts several times a year held in the church. The Primary School is C of E and comes 3 times a year for a service. There is a votive stand for those who wish to spend time in prayer for a loved one.
Being a presence and available is important.
An odd phenomenon in our church is while we have older people who are dying off they seem to be replaced by new, older people who are coming in!
That is interesting—but I don’t think I find it surprising…
I am told that St Anne’s Soho has a 30 per cent gay congregation. Gay young men (and many others) flock to St Bartholomew the Great, where one vicar is living “with his partner”, another vicar. I assume this is due to the Bishops’ ruling, as above. St Barts is Anglo Catholic, and its congregation is speedily rising due to a number of factors, including its beautiful building, excellent music, the Book of Common Prayet, some fine King James Bible based sermons and a well promoted social diary.
Meanwhile the conservative evangelical St Helen’s Bishopgate , teaching the old long-held truths, flourishes even more, and round the corner St Botolph without Aldersgate has a healthy congregation of Wee Frees. Close by, St Ethelreda’s has a full church for its Latin masses.
These churches pull in Christians from all over London and nearby counties. People are very actively looking for a connection with God, that’s clear.
Personally, I think I may settle with the Wee Frees.
And also shows the importance to keep a wide variety of Anglican traditions on offer in churches to maximise their congregations
Except that I don’t know of examples like this in the liberal tradition.
St Barts supports PLF
Yup. Not everyone attending realises it – the lure of Barts is many faceted. I’ve never heard it preached. But after a while some members of the congregation seem to recognise the USP, and a few move on as a result. Others, many delightful youngmen, palpably devout, are clearly rejoicing in finding a spiritual home where homosexual practice is accepted as Biblically approved.
Except of course Cathedral congregations continue to grow in number. And they are by and large in the liberal catholic tradition.
Indeed, C of E cathedrals of course get more annual visitors that any other C of E church or building and good attendance at their services too
St Bart’s does indeed describe itself in the liberal orthodox tradition, and is certainly liberal in the matter of human sexuality. And as noted, is growing. Very traditional liturgy and music. Anglo Catholic ceremony. This combination seems to appeal to some young people.
Thankyou. Nice and clear, as always, although i suspect i don’t share your beliefs. Don’t you think the historic “Lord and Saviour” belief in Jesus is harder to accept now that we know the Universe is 15bn years old than it was when it emerged when people thought it was only a few thousand years old?
Why would it be harder to accept Nigel?
Because it makes it harder to believe that humanity is the centre or goal of creation.
The fear that we may be insignificant specks in the universe is not new. Christ addressed this fear when he called the disciples in Matthew 10: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”
No I don’t! Jesus is Lord is the basic confession of all Christians, including astrophysicists, of whom there are many.
You give two reasons for asserting this: (1) that most Christians would say “Jesus is Lord” (I agree they would but that’s unsurprising because our faith comes down to us from an earlier stage of human awareness and many are fearful of questioning and updating it) and (2) that many astrophysicists agree. (Also unsurprising. I too know scientists who compartmentalise their thinking. But i wouldn’t want to delegate my deepest reflections to them.)
Nigel, l am a physicist by training and also confess Jesus as Lord. In no way do l compartmentalise my thinking. In fact it is quite integrated. Have your read any works by John Lennox or Alister McGrath for example?
Just one further question if l may. How would you question and update ‘Jesus is Lord?
What would you update it to in our modern times?
Hi. Yes, I have.
I didn’t say it was impossible to be scientifically literate and assert that Jesus is Lord in an objective cosmic sense, but that our understanding of the size and age of the Universe makes that harder to believe than it was when Christianity emerged, when people though the earth was the centre of the Universe and just a few thousand years old. I was reacting to the dismissive way Ian in his blog wrote about those who have reinterpreted the person of Jesus, which seems to me an entirely legitimate thing to do.
Also he seems rather dismissive of liberal Christians (like me). For the record, despite being a liberal, I’m not “full of doubts” as I think someone else wrote. But I do have different beliefs, which actually also I think are more faithful to the Jesus found I’m Scripture.
To respond to your other question, Chris, I think we overemphasise Jesus as “dealing with sin”. He taught that you have to lose your life in order to enter into fullness of life, and to take up your cross and follow him, but he also demonstrated this, and we are called to follow. So he is our inspiration (which is the same as saying he gives us his spirit) and we can call him Lord. But what I am querying is the idea of his objectively unique position in the history of this unimaginably vast and ancient universe. Unique for us who follow him, yes.
Thank you for this article. while I was ordained in England, I have spent most of my life in the USA, and since retirement, I have spent the last 17 years in missionary work in South America, with forays in Africa and the far East. I am writing because the issue of clergy recruitment is such, that although I am now have entered my 80s ,I find myself in continued demand for ministry. The shortage of clergy is desperate. When I was ordained fifty years ago, a the age of 30. Many people saw me as “Old.” The idea was being mooted that people should only enter the ministry and the training for ministry after some “life experience.” In the USA this meant that for decades we saw people enter the ordained ministry in their late forties or early fifties. It has proven to be a disaster. IMHO, we need to recruit from among our best and most energetic young Christian people. Sadly, not only am I convinced that this is unlikely, but also, I believe it is probably too late. Pray to the Lord of the Church for revival and a “new wineskin” that will serve the spread of the Gospel robustly and incorporate the same vibrant and robust mission as we saw in the Apostolic age. Thanks be to God, this is happening in many parts of the Global South.
Thanks. Yes, this is a major issue, and will take a long time to change.
Thank you Ian for your thoughts, and continued interest in church statistics.
I produced these figures, supported by the efforts of diocesan colleagues and by clergy, churchwardens, and others who reported the information for their churches. On behalf of everyone who makes use of this information, I am extremely grateful.
The figures are preliminary, as noted, and may change as further information becomes available and as I carry out further data checks – as readers might imagine, distinguishing errors from accurately-reported unusual events in this dataset takes some time.
I shared earlier versions of these figures with diocesan colleagues, Archbishops’ Council members, Bishops, and national church colleagues from January onwards. The headline trends have not changed a great deal since then – which doesn’t mean such changes won’t happen between now and the final version, but makes them reasonably unlikely, in my view.
For those who want it, the methodological detail will appear in due course, but is very similar to what I included in the 2023 Statistics for Mission report, available here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/statisticsformission2023.pdf
Also in that report are contact details – very happy to discuss any of this with anyone who is interested.
It might be worth noting that the figures show, as accurately as I can make them, what the situation was up to 2024. They do not, of course, tell us precisely what will happen next, though they might suggest some possibilities.
Ken, thanks so much for commenting—and thank you for the work that you and the team do. I think it is invaluable as a reality check on what is happening in the wider church.
One question that a number of people have asked is: can the figures be broken down by (self-identified) church tradition eg catholic, evangelical, and so on? These categories are commonly used in surveys.
Is there a reason that we avoid doing that?
Thanks Ian (and apologies for the slow reply: I took a break from reading blogs over school half term).
Well, I seek suggestions each year for the “one off” question on the Stats for Mission form from national and diocesan colleagues, and others, and also keep an eye on the things that churches say in the comments box that might indicate other things that could be asked. So far, having a question about “church tradition” hasn’t featured, as far as I recall.
Not that it might not be of interest, just that there are other things people would rather find out instead. It feels like the kind of information that would be interesting if we had it, but is not a high priority to find out given we don’t.
So the terribly boring answer is that I haven’t asked the question because the colleagues for whom I do the work have not asked me to.
As to why they haven’t, well, I don’t know, but I guess that many people using the dataset “locally” – churches, deaneries, archdeacons, diocesan colleagues – already knows this information, broadly speaking, insofar as it’s relevant for their purposes, so locally there’s little benefit to taking up everyone’s time to answer the question.
I’m not sure it’s as straightforward an area as some might think, mind you, in that I can imagine cases where the “traditions” of the incumbent, the church wardens, the historic nature of the church, different congregations within the church, and so on, might differ, so the answer to a question might depend on who happens to answer it, among other things.
The stats are very helpful, thank you for all that goes into this exercise. I am though left pondering, are we at a stage where our on-line or virtual contingent should be embraced and included. I am outside the CifE but my experience is that this reach is important and has in a number of cases to clear growth in depth, conversion and physical attendance down the line. It is real and important and often still (unfortunately) invisible.
Thanks David (and apologies for the slow reply: I took a break from reading blogs over school half term).
I agree that online (etc.) worship is interesting, and I’ve been reporting on it since 2020. The vast majority of CofE churches were offering online/email/phone/postal services in 2020, which was an astonishing feat, really. As you might expect, it’s been going down since, and is now a little under a third of churches; and those that offer online worship do so less often.
Quantifying “attendance” at online services can be challenging, partly because the headline “views” metric provided by some commonly-used platforms counts very short duration views, of only a few seconds, and taking that figure at face value would be like counting as attendees people who drive past a church while a service was underway. It’s possible to get sensible numbers from the platforms, but it’s a bit of a pain, and entirely understandably some people are busy with the day-to-day life of ministry and do not have time to delve into the metrics. Some of the figures that have been shared are not helpful.
The best I can say is that there are probably some tens of thousands of meaningful views of CofE online services.
Of course, with online services one can attend many times, and in many places, and can also “worship again” having already been there in person – e.g. to re-listen to the sermon, or the anthem.
Churches are encouraged to include their regular online attendees as part of their worshipping community, which is one reason why that measure was much less affected than others during the pandemic.
So, in summary: I agree, and I’m trying to find sensible and helpful ways of describing what’s going on, but it’s messy!
Speaking of senior leadership saying things in public that don’t help, the bishop of the Episcopal church in America just loudly seized on the arrival of South African political refugees as an occasion to declare that the church’s resettlement ministry would refuse to help them on the basis of a political difference with the Trump administration, thereby signaling his and the church’s virtue for all to see.
If the Churches want to connect with thoughtful young men whose thinking has been perturbed by their secondary and maybe tertiary education, they really need to invest in some good apologetics type teaching showing:
– that God exists (and science supports this)
– that life, consciousness and reason are no accidents but really point to our good Creator
– that the world is full of design, order and purpose
– that morality only makes sense if it comes from God and has post-mortem consequences
– that Jesus really rose from the dead and that Resurrection vindicates his claims
– that Christian faith and lifestyle make our living more peaceful and satisfying than the chaos of self-invention.
Some of the best communicators in the internet are those who project a joyful and thoughtful orthodox faith. The leader in the evangelical world is William Lane Craig, with young Wes Huff now emerging and making an impact on The Joe Rogan Show. In the Catholic world, Bishop Robert Barron’s ‘Word On Fire’ reaches millions every week.
Ministerial training needs to learn from this and make apologetics education and communication front and centre of training.
–
such apologetics is all over Youtube. It’s not as if the ‘young’ are unaware of such arguments.
But how often do they hear this in church? Clergy should be trained first and foremost as apologists for the Christian faith, able to explain in every circumstance why we should believe. Few seem capable of this (liberals are full of doubts), and are happier being ‘liturgists’.
Actually, a lot of young people I have met in teaching are pretty unaware of the strong apologetic case that can be made or Christianity. I have had remarkable conversations with young people from a secular background.
James – and where does sin, the cross, the blood of Christ come into the 6 points you list? The joy comes from knowing that I am forgiven (through Him).
Fundamental apologetics are the foundation for understanding all these questions.
1. Sin comes into showing that morality is objective and none of us lives up to even our own image of ourselves.
2. The cross comes into showing that Jesus really existed and was really executed on a cross, then resurrected, leading the enquirer to consider why he died (and what light does the resurrection cast on this one man, among countless others executed unjustly).
3. The blood of Christ comes into explaining the meaning of sacrifice in the Bible.
James – OK – makes some kind of sense – but I’m not convinced you have the correct starting point. I think it was you who pointed out on this forum (in the dim and distant past) that Bertrand Russel’s main problem with Christianity actually sprang from the fact that he enjoyed getting divorced and re-married.
This makes more sense to me: (a) people actually have an innate belief in a creator God (the first three of your points): (b) this comes with some sort of innate understanding of morality (your fourth point) i.e. what God actually wants from us and (c) unbelief is basically rebellion against this and the self attempting to give rational grounds for doing exactly what it wants (in flagrant opposition to what it knows to be right).
Jock, I don’t disagree with any of that. I’m a big fan of Pascal, after all.
But if someone says he has a good faith objection to Christianity’s truth claims, I think he has a right to be listened to. reason is God’s gift to us, as well as conscience.
James – yes – and perhaps I would go further – sometimes, in answering these objections, one removes extraneous garbage from one’s own faith.
(Aside: for example – people who somehow see a contradiction between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution on the one hand – and a Creator God who is above and Almighty on the other – people seem unable to grasp that it was God who created the laws that govern nature and who seem to think that ‘by natural law’ would somehow contradict a creator God, while ‘by miraculous intervention’ might support it – when really a cool set of natural laws which work smoothly without continual need for intervention should surely be extremely supportive of the idea of a creator God).
But while such study might be good for Christians, particularly those who have lost sight of the wood for the trees – and seem obsessed with a literal understanding of Genesis and endless speculation about end times theory, we know that a self-declared atheist who presents us with a seemingly ‘good faith objection’ to Christianity’s truth claims, really needs to be convicted of his sins and needs a real risen Saviour in his life. I’m not at all sure that the apologetics you outlined helps this on its way.
That sounds more like dogmatics than apologetics.
Apologetics can’t be produced in a vacuum – they’re properly a response to an existing criticism (e.g. the early Christian apologists were concerned with accusations such as alleging Christianity was a cannibalistic cult because we kept saying we were consuming the body and blood of Christ).
I would agree with the inference though, that the Church needs as much to renew its knowledge of and confidence in expressing its own dogma as it does engaging in apologetics. The two really ought to go hand in hand.
What we don’t need is ‘good communicators’ who communicate that the world is full of design, order and purpose andthe universe is ’15 billion years old’ (supra). Which is what the Intelligent Design movement does. It has just held a ‘Science and Faith’ conference in Dallas. Dipping in, I found Paul Nelson’s talk on the miraculous transformation of pupae to butterflies excellent. The open-minded listener will think, ‘There must be a God; there must be.’ But if he then asks, so what is the historical narrative – how did life, miraculous as it is, come about? – ID has no biblical answer: the universe according to atheistic cosmologists is 14 billion years old; therefore what happened was ‘guided evolution’. God was intervening continually to make nature do what, by itself, it could not do. This is entirely contrary to the biblical narrative that the work of creation happened in the beginning, after which God ceased to create. And it is contrary to the biblical narrative that man himself was created in the beginning. The position is intellectually supremely unsatisfying and one that conventional scientists roundly and rightly reject. When, with their atheistic presumptions, cosmologists and evolutionary biologists do their science, they don’t say, “Of course there is a Creator. Of course life cannot be explained without a Designer.” The Big Bang narrative is based on the assumption that only matter exists; spirit, consciousness, free will, are entirely reducible to the properties of atoms. Christians settle for it because they don’t have the courage (i.e. honesty) or the intelligence to say ‘No, no, this makes no sense.’ They think, rather: ‘At least the communicators are saying something that support the existence of a God, of a Designer.’
The presumptions themselves need challenging. The Big Bang and the 14-billion-year age for the universe that goes with it are not sacred cows, and when Christians refuse to challenge it, they are merely bowing before an idol, saying, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” “This is your God, O Church, who delivered you from the land of bondage.”
It is an open secret that the Big Bang narrative has never been under such immense strain as now, with the James Webb Telescope revealing massive galaxies near the beginning of time that are ‘impossibly early’ – to say nothing of the lithium problem and numerous other problems. Yet that is what William Lane Craig et al. hook their apologetics to.
The apostle Peter put it well. ‘They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” ‘ The uniformitarian presumption, Peter says, is a false one. Scripture testifies throughout that the ‘matter is all there is’ presumption is a false one. Academic science starts from the presumption, “There is no God.” God says, “The wisdom of the world is foolishness, and you are fools to put your faith in it.”
Given the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest I find your assertion bizarre.
I agree, and indeed my son spent at least two or three years reading apologetics on line and posing counter arguments before saying: “It’s all true.”
There is a thirst I have observed amongst educated men for academic approaches. It’s not the only approach, but it’s also needed.
Well, thank God the young women will escape these apologetics!
Perhaps Catholic Answers built up by Karl Keating in the 80s, and now home to very effective Catholic apologists like Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin, is a suitable model to follow. It would be tricky, as we have a tradition of tolerance and charity that allows diversity of thought even on really important matters. So unlike a Catholic apologist the Anglican will find it harder to have a single Anglican answer. Maybe such an effort would end up having to spend a fair amount of time explaining where an issue fits in the triage of importance of unity or tolerance.
James – while you may be right that fundamental apologetics should be taught, you’ll find that the lack of it in divinity schools isn’t the main obstacle to good preaching.
The main obstacle is that many preachers (a) don’t believe in the ‘offence of the cross’ (i.e. that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the wages of sin is death, etc ….) and (b) even if they do, they understand that if they communicate this effectively, they’ll empty their churches (since many, including church-goers, are ‘offended in Him’). The ‘good stuff’ about redemption has to be based in this – why God’s redemptive plan was necessary.
You can get completely uneducated people who preach an effective message – for example, Jock Troup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Troup
He didn’t know a thing about fundamental apologetics, yet many came to faith through his preaching.
Well, praise God for that. I support any honourable way of sharing the gospel.
Some encouragement C of E attendance is returning to pre Covid levels at least. Though given the importance of having good incumbents attracted to Parish roles and shortage of ordinands and candidates, more central Church funds should be put into priests salaries and less into administration. Church planting should also be done largely for free, if a church plant proves successful its new and growing congregation should fund it.
As for rural areas, of course rural areas are more likely to have a local C of E church than urban areas close by. That is simply due to the fact that most C of E churches were built before the industrial revolution when most of the population lived in rural areas and had not yet moved to big towns and cities. It is also a myth to say that rural churches are doomed to disappear, for starters their pool of pensioners replenishes as pensioners often retire to rural areas from suburbs and commuter towns after retirement. Rural areas also are the broadest church of C of E churches, containing Catholics and evangelicals, simply because there are normally no other churches of any denomination in the village or hamlet where the C of E church is based.
Of course the most liberal and pro same sex marriage and woke churches in the C of E are almost all in big cities like Manchester or Liverpool or inner London, exactly as those areas tend to be represented by left liberal MPs. Rural areas however tend to have congregations which are small c conservative reflecting too the fact they are more likely to have conservative MPs (or Reform now too). So to suggest a more urban and suburban C of E will be more conservative is ludicrous, beyond a few hardline conservative evangelical churches big cities are left liberal as are their churches. Indeed the polling evidence also says the younger the C of E member the more pro same sex marriage they are and the youngest C of E members are in inner cities mainly
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/45199-anglicans-more-likely-not-back-church-england-cond
As for gay clergy entering a same sex marriage, well the C of E is established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal so nothing wrong with that. Even if they can still only get prayers of love and faith within their church services after their civil same sex marriage.
Simon keeps whistling past the church graveyard. He has no idea of the great crisis of vocations that will hit the C of E within 5 years as many hundreds of clergy retire and only a few are ordained. Massive rural church closures are about to hit.
If you had read my first paragraph you would have seen I made clear more central C of E funds need to be transferred to increase clearly salaries to encourage more to become ordinands and stipendiary clergy. At the moment in many rural churches retired clergy and self supporting ministers, often themselves retired from lucrative private sector careers take up much of the workload with the stipendiary clergy spread over multiple churches in their benefice and often part time.
Your final sentence is also why there must be an end to all paid and funded church plants so more funds can be transferred to our historic rural churches to help keep them open. If you want to church plant fund it yourself from new congregations you get
‘well the C of E is established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal so nothing wrong with that’. Simon, you don’t appear to understand where the doctrine of the C of E comes from. Spoiler alert: not from secular culture.
Its doctrine comes from Synod, which voted clearly for PLF
You and Simon keep having the same conversation. Pointless.
Aaargh. Look. There’s no point to this.
T1 is not a Christian.
T1 is, like our current King (and unlike His Majesty’s late Mother), an indifferentist who thinks that religion is not about believing in true propositions, but is about finding deep and profound spiritual meaning in tradition, culture and ritual. That’s why T1 can make comments about ‘any old Christian church’; because for T1, being an Anglican, the tradition and the history and the buildings and the language and the hymns, is what matters. To T1, there is no difference between a Pentecostal and a Buddhist; both are ‘not Anglican’ because they don’t share that aesthetic and culture, and T1 doesn’t feel any more connection to the Pentecostal than the Buddhist on the grounds of believing the same things because T1 doesn’t actually believe any of it. T1 is just there for the vibes.
In Japan, T1 would follow State Shinto. In the USSR, T1 would have been a devout atheist Leninist. In Rome, T1 would have sacrificed to the Emperor and muttered darkly about how something should really be done about these Christians (they don’t seem loyal; can you really trust them?).
So there’s absolutely zero point in trying to explain to T1 how true doctrine comes from the Bible, because T1 doesn’t think there’s anything ‘true’ about doctrine; T1 thinks that doctrine is just the shared rules of the game which all followers of a particular cultural tradition, be it Anglicanism, Methodism, Islam, Judaism, or Confucianism, or anything, all agree to live by in order to maintain their tradition; and therefore the members of the tradition can, of course, agree to change the rules of the game and then you either go along with the change or you go and join someone else’s game that you vibe with better, or you set up your own game.
Stop trying to talk to T1 about anything based on the premise that the idea of doctrine is to try to reflect the truth. T1 does not share that premise, so you’re just talking past each other. You can’t convince someone they are wrong about the source of truth when the entire point is that they don’t believe there is any ‘truth’ in religion at all.
I’m sorry, I know I’m not supposed to comment here but it’s been driving me nuts.
No, I am a Christian, just one who doesn’t believe the main purpose of the Christian faith is to condemn same sex couples as some do. However yes I am indeed also an Anglican and that includes reflecting the traditions and distinct nature of the denomination
T1/Simon
I also “don’t believe the main purpose of the Christian faith is to condemn same sex couples as some do”. However it is rather clear that God in his Word does affirm a proper use of human sexuality and rejects as inappropriate various other uses including ‘same-sex sex’. So a true faith in God will include trust in what He says about that. Simples!!
Right now ‘the World’ has chosen sexuality as a battleground against the Church and we can’t ignore it – and definitely must not surrender on the issue…..
You have been missed, S.
So as a Christian, you have been unable to articulate the Evangel.
What makes you a Christian, according to your definition? What are the factors.
Self identification does not a Christian make.
“As for gay clergy entering a same sex marriage, well the C of E is established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal so nothing wrong with that. Even if they can still only get prayers of love and faith within their church services after their civil same sex marriage.”
Once again, you’ve got that one the wrong way round. The C of E gets its theology from the bible (via the creeds and historic ordinances) not from ‘ a nation where same sex marriage is legal so nothing wrong with that.’ Or shall we start blessing abortions? They’re legal and even celebrated by our nation!
No, any old Christian denomination gets its theology from the bible. How the C of E determines its doctrine and interprets the bible in the way it conducts its services and worship is determined by C of E bishops and the C of E Synod.
Nobody, not even a woman who chooses a legal abortion, sees it as something to celebrate. The C of E has also of course not merely blessed but remarried divorcees for decades even if no spousal adultery involved in many cases, which is the only reason Jesus gave to grant a divorce. So of course it is only right they now hold services of blessing for committed same sex couples too
‘How the C of E determines its doctrine and interprets the bible in the way it conducts its services and worship is determined by C of E bishops and the C of E Synod.’ Sorry Simon, that is not true.
Canon A5: Of the doctrine of the Church of England
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
I have pointed you to this before; it is very odd that you keep forgetting it.
As I said, the doctrine of the Church of England and how scripture is interpreted for it and how the C of E is governed is done by Synod and its bishops, clergy and laity.
Canon A6, which you conveniently omitted, ‘The government of the Church of England under the King’s Majesty, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and the rest of the clergy and of the laity that bear office in the same, is not repugnant to the Word of God’.
Simon, Canon A 6 doesn’t say the Church of England gets its doctrine or authority from the State.
That’s a misreading. Canon A 5 makes it crystal clear: the Church’s doctrine is grounded in Holy Scripture. Canon A 6 isn’t talking about doctrine at all—it’s about governance. It simply states that the Church’s structure under the Crown—its bishops, clergy, and legal form—is not repugnant to Scripture.
In other words, being established by law is a permissible arrangement, not a theological source. The Church’s teaching comes from Scripture, not from Parliament. Parliament doesn’t define the faith—it recognises a Church that already confesses it. If you’re going to appeal to the canons, read what they actually say.
Canon A5 makes clear CofE doctrine is grounded in scripture. Canon A6 makes clear how the C of E is governed and scripture interpreted is down to its bishops, clergy and laity.
Synod’s powers over the C of E also confirmed by Parliament in relation to its predecessor via the Church of England Assembly Powers Act 1919, including the ability to propose measures for passage by Parliament
Simon,
Let’s be absolutely clear, since you keep muddling basic points.
1. The Church of England’s doctrine comes from the Bible.
Canon A 5 says the Church’s doctrine is grounded in Holy Scripture. That’s not a vague slogan — it means the Church’s teaching is based on the Bible, not on bishops’ opinions, Synod votes, or government preference.
2. The Articles, Prayer Book, and Ordinal explain how the Church reads the Bible.
They are not optional extras. They are the official way the Church of England expresses biblical truth. Bishops, clergy, and laity are required to uphold them — not rewrite them.
3. Canon A 6 is about structure, not theology.
It simply says the Church’s governance under the Crown — bishops, clergy, laity — is allowed by Scripture. It doesn’t say they get to decide what the Bible means. It certainly doesn’t say Synod or Parliament defines doctrine.
4. Parliament cannot change doctrine.
Yes, Synod can send Measures to Parliament under the 1919 Act — but that’s about legal matters, not theology. Parliament can’t tell the Church what to believe. If it tried to, it would be ignored — rightly.
5. Your original point is wrong.
You said: “Any church gets its theology from the Bible, but the C of E’s interpretation comes from bishops and Synod.” No. The Church of England’s interpretation of the Bible is found in the formularies. Bishops and Synod are bound by them. They don’t get to improvise. That’s what makes it the Church of England and not just “any old church.”
The Church’s teaching isn’t up for grabs. The Bible is the authority, the formularies interpret it, and everyone else — bishops included — is accountable to that standard.
Hope that’s finally clear.
Just an aside,
The Articles, Prayer Book and Ordinal are unamendable? Really? According to who and on what basis? The Articles themselves were are the product of several bouts of amendments in the 16th century, and there was a serious effort to reform the Prayer Book in 1928.
As for the Prayer Book and Ordinal being the last word on interpretation, the ordination of women would seem to disprove that point.
Nope, the C of E’s doctrine is based on how Synod and its bishops interpret scripture. Article 6 makes that clear.
Parliament could change doctrine if it wished. If Parliament passed a statute tomorrow saying same sex marriages must be performed in the established church’s churches with no opt out it would be legally entitled to do so and any C of E priest ignoring that could be arrested. Now it won’t on a practical basis and leaves it up to Synod to determine C of E doctrine but legally in theory it could.
The formularies via A6 make clear that the Bishops and Synod interpret what the Bible means for the C of E.
“The Articles, Prayer Book and Ordinal are unamendable? Really? According to who and on what basis? The Articles themselves were are the product of several bouts of amendments in the 16th century, and there was a serious effort to reform the Prayer Book in 1928.”
No-one said that? But I can’t see how you could amend them without fundamentally changing the nature of the church (unless it was very minor amendments indeed). The debacle of the 1928 prayer book basically demonstrates that they are practically unamendable.
‘ Nobody, not even a woman who chooses a legal abortion, sees it as something to celebrate.’
Sadly that’s not even true. Secular society celebrates and encourages it.
And your argument quoting A6 is bizzarre. They govern in accordance with the canons which clearly state their authority, they don’t have any authority to declare doctrine which contradicts the formularies and canons and the principle of biblical authority. Doctrine (teaching) and governance are completely different.
Does it? Where? And of course abortion remains illegal after 24 weeks of pregnancy in UK.
My article quoting Article A6. It makes clear however the Bishops, clergy and laity govern and interpret scripture and doctrine is by definition ‘not repugnant to the Word of God.’
Hence Synod approved remarriage of divorcees, ordination of women priests and bishops and now PLF of same sex couples as being in accordance with the Word of God as authorised by A6 for them to do.
Any evangelical who therefore rejects the will of Synod deciding C of E doctrine has no place in the C of E and must leave it for their nearest Baptist, Pentecostal or independent church
Simon,
I don’t know why I bother because you’ve demonstrated a total inability to understand the Canons and legal structure of the church you serve, and furthermore never actually engage with dissenting opinion, but continue to spam obviously incorrect replies.
Your reading of Canon A 6 is deeply flawed and collapses the distinction between governance and doctrine, which the Canons themselves take great care to preserve.
Canon A 6 states that “the government of the Church of England under the King’s Majesty, by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and the rest of the clergy and laity, is not repugnant to the Word of God.” This is a structural affirmation: it declares that the Church’s form of governance is legitimate in biblical terms. It does not say that whatever this governing body decides becomes doctrine or is automatically in accordance with the Word of God.
To claim that the approval of remarriage after divorce, the ordination of women, or the Prayers of Love and Faith settles doctrinal questions is to confuse legislative procedure with theological authority. Synod has the legal power to regulate practice — but only within the bounds of the Church’s doctrinal standards. If Synod overreaches those bounds, it is not speaking with the authority of the Church, but acting against it.
Your suggestion that evangelicals who dissent from recent Synod decisions “have no place in the Church of England” is not only arrogant, but completely contrary to the Church’s constitutional structure. Evangelicals who uphold the authority of Scripture and the formularies are not the ones who have abandoned the doctrine of the Church — they are the ones who continue to hold it faithfully. To suggest otherwise is to mistake institutional conformity for doctrinal fidelity.
Moreover, the Church of England has always allowed principled dissent within its doctrinal framework. A classic example is baptismal regeneration: some affirm it in a sacramental sense, others interpret the language of the Prayer Book spiritually or covenantally. What matters is that both positions can be held in good conscience within the formularies. That is very different from asserting the right to invent new doctrine or overturn biblical teaching by majority vote.
As for your claim that “nobody celebrates abortion,” that is demonstrably untrue. There is ample evidence — from campaigns like “Shout Your Abortion” to mainstream media commentary and activist rhetoric — that sectors of secular culture do, in fact, frame abortion as a cause for celebration. To deny this is to ignore both the tone and substance of contemporary discourse.
The Church’s identity does not lie in adapting to cultural trends or in rubber-stamping the will of majority votes, but in remaining faithful to Scripture and the doctrine it has received. That is the standard set by the Canons — and it remains binding on us all.
Correction, I have shown an unwillingness to accept the view of hardline evangelicals who ignore the key role of Synod in interpreting scripture in the C of E and instead believe every issue must be interpreted in as hardline a way as possible, especially when it comes to those in same sex relationships.
Canon A6 makes absolutely clear whatever Bishops, clergy and laity decide is doctrine for the C of E and not repugnant to the Word of God. If it didn’t then the C of E could be just any old Baptist or Pentecostal church without leadership from its Bishops and Synod. I repeat my assertion that evangelicals who refuse to wish to impose their interpretation of scripture on the rest of the C of E contrary to the will of Synod, not merely just accept the opt out they get on issues like ordination of women or PLF must leave the C of E for another denomination or become independent. There could even be a case such wholesale rejection of the will of Synod is grounds for expulsion from the Church of England
Given the C of E literally burnt alive at the stake Roman Catholic dissenters or jailed nonconformist dissenters a few centuries ago saying the C of E has ‘always allowed principled dissent’ is a somewhat ahistorical claim. Even if the C of E does allow vigorous discussion within Synod once Synod has come to a conclusion that stands. How congregations view baptism has little to do with that.
A view extremists may celebrate abortion but the fact UK women can be arrested and jailed still for abortions after 24 weeks, on medical grounds probably correctly still illegal, shows as a whole as a culture we certainly don’t celebrate them.
The Church of England’s role as national and established church also means that unlike some other denominations it will never stray too far from the majority view of the populace in England in how it interprets scripture. If you don’t accept that you should never have been in our established church anyway but another denomination
Simon,
You continue to confuse legal procedure with theological authority. Your reading of Canon A 6 is wrong. It affirms that the Church of England’s form of government under the Crown is “not repugnant to the Word of God.” That means the structure is legitimate — not that every Synod decision is doctrinally sound.
Canon A 5 defines the Church’s doctrine as “grounded in the Holy Scriptures,” and specifically found in the Thirty-nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal. These are the standard — not whatever Synod passes by majority vote.
Clergy do not swear obedience to Synod. They make the Declaration of Assent, which commits them to proclaim the faith revealed in Scripture and witnessed to in the historic formularies. Synod’s authority is legal and pastoral, not doctrinal. When Synod contradicts the formularies or Scripture outside the proper canonical process — which requires supermajorities and formal authorisation — it exceeds its mandate.
Your claim that evangelicals who dissent from Synod’s recent innovations “have no place in the Church” is not only arrogant, but anti-Anglican. The Church of England has always allowed principled theological dissent within its doctrinal framework. Disagreement with recent decisions — particularly where they appear to depart from Scripture — is not schism. It is fidelity.
On abortion: yes, it is celebrated by parts of secular society. Campaigns like Shout Your Abortion and rhetoric praising it as empowerment make that clear. The existence of legal limits after 24 weeks does not prove cultural seriousness — only political compromise.
And your logic collapses here. You claim the Church must follow majority opinion in matters like same-sex blessings. If that is your standard, you can make no coherent objection to the moral normalisation of abortion. You’ve surrendered Scripture as the standard of truth — and once you’ve done that, you have no foundation left for resisting anything the culture decides next.
Finally, your claim that the Church’s establishment means it must reflect majority public opinion is deeply revealing. That is not a theology of the Church — it is populist surrender. The Church of England’s identity rests not on cultural mood, but on Scripture and the doctrine it has received. If Synod forgets that, it is not defenders of the formularies who should consider leaving — it is those who have abandoned them.
No, my reading of A6 is right, Synod and the Bishops affirm the government and doctrine for the C of E precisely so low church nonconformists like you can’t turn it into a Baptist church in all but name. The scripture mentioned in A5 is interpreted by Synod for the C of E.
Clergy are 1/3 of Synod and follow the faith as interpreted by Synod and the King as their Supreme Governor as set out in the BCP. Rejection of the will of Synod and its interpretation of scripture is grounds for expulsion and excommunication from the Church of England.
Your rejection of the power of Synod and the authority of its bishops of apostolic succession is what is anti Anglican. As for allowing dissent, in much of the late 17th and most of the 18th centuries nonconformists like you would have been thrown in jail for rejecting the authority of the C of E’s bishops.
The C of E also does not oppose abortion either, just regrets it but accepts it as a last resort. It is not as hardline against abortion as conservative evangelicals just as it is not as hardline against same sex marriage and same sex couples as hardline conservative evangelicals like the Baptists or Pentecostals.
The Church of England’s identity rests on being national church, as Henry VIII created to be with the King as its head, both Catholic and Reformed not a purely Puritan low church focused solely on the Word of God
Simon,
You’re free to pretend to live in a fictional church where governance, doctrine, and liturgy are folded into one, where ethics follow the culture, and where Scripture is subordinated to the state — but please don’t pretend that what you’re describing is real. It isn’t, and it doesn’t do you any good to act as though it is.
I’m not going to bother any further. Conversation closed.
T1, if your trajectory ends up with so chilling a disregard for the lives of little humans coupled with a fundamentalist adherence to denomination right or wrong, seemingly devoid of independent thought, then please rethink/reset. These are the reductio ad absurdum of your incorrect trajectory, but would that it were just absurd rather than also cruel and amoral.
There are no verses in the Bible strictly opposing abortion. You can find verses opposing same sex acts, women priests, divorce without spousal adultery, even eating shellfish but non against abortion before a foetus becomes viable. If I had no regard for the unborn I would also back abortion on demand until birth which I don’t, I support the 24 week limit and can even see a case for reducing that to 22 weeks
There are no verses in the Bible opposing the genocide of the Kurds or FGM either. What an extraordinarily bad argument. If that is your *best argument, the case falls automatically.
Only those who believe in magic think anything suddenly happens at 24 or 22 weeks. But the thoughts of those who do not believe in magic should always be far preferred to the thoughts of those who do.
24 and 22 weeks are relevant to a baby who is born prematurely. They are not even 0.0000001% relevant to the vast majority of babies who are not. You have likely been duped by the cynical argument – whose inventors did not think anyone would fall for it – which runs as follows: ‘If the minuscule minority of babies born prematurely at precisely 22 (or 24) weeks have a decent chance of *SURVIVAL, that means we can *kill any of the vast majority of babies who are quite happily ensconced in their mother’s womb at the same age.’
That is a very high level of illogicality indeed. But clearly a higher level of evil.
The Kurds and women are human beings, for which the Old Testament forbids murder in the 10 commandments for example, a pre viability fetus is not. Of course in some nations the abortion time limit is 12 weeks, eg Germany, Italy and Ireland in a few US states like Texas now after 6 weeks. However even there that is still an abortion taking place yet in the case of Texas for example certainly not a murder of a human being on any definition
A pre-viability fetus is ‘not a human being’? Really? Then what is it?
That comment comes across as quite horrible, and does not seem to be for real. It is incorrect (and of course cruel too) in multiple ways.
First, if not human, which species then?
Second, you did not digest my main point about the illogicality, the way that so-called viability is a matter that applies only to the premature, not at all to the 99% of babies who are still happy inside the womb. To them it is irrelevant.
Third, you are treating the law as something that fell from the sky and elevating it above actual science and reality.
Fourth, in doing that you are ignoring all the previous refutations of such a strange approach.
FIfth, your own admission that the law changes and is also different everywhere ought to have prevented you from ever seeing the transient law as being the bottom line.
The law defines that only a fetus which has reached viability is human, most doctors take that to be 24 weeks. Certainly at 12 weeks the lungs are not fully formed, with a very tiny percentage surviving from between 12-20 weeks and at 6 weeks as in Texas a fetus is not survivable outside the womb
Your answers are characterised by unanswered questions:
(1) What was the true situation for the 99.999999% of history when that random law was not in place?
(2) Why are you pretending law is infallible?
(3) You have now been asked three times which species these little babies are if they are not human. You are unable to answer because you know they are human.
(4) That would make you dishonest.
(5) Where does the law deny that we are human at that age? You said it did. I have never heard that.
(6) The number of weeks babies survive at is a consideration that is relevant to premature babies only.
(7) You are applying it to babies who are in the womb, and you know that it is an irrelevant consideration to them.
(8) This point has been made to you three times or more. I do not think it is likely you can answer it. If you cannot, then you have to agree that your position is wrong, because it is incapable of answering.
(9) The only reason for this sleight of hand (6) – which you inherited rather than invented – is to justify killing them.
The law in the UK denies that we are human before the age of 24 weeks as a fetus as that is the timeframe for abortion. If it didn’t then all abortions in the UK would legally be murder of a human being
You ignore the points made against you, which proves you do not understand the issue. Accordingly you lose the debate.
The issues you did not step up to were:
-If not human, then what species?
-Which is superior, science or law? Which is conducted by specialists in the topic of biology and which is not?
-You are acting as though it is impossible that murder is happening? Why do you think they invent a new word ‘abortion’ unless to divert from what it really is, the killing of a little human. They probably thought no-one would be duped by something so obviously untrue. Well, people are being, and you are being.
-What is the relevance of ‘viability’ to the 99% of babies that are not premature?
If someone does not address points once, they probably can’t. If they do not address points when those points are put to them 3 times, then ethey certainly can’t, and accordingly they lose the debate.
Of course the law will deny it is murder, even though it is intentional premeditated killing of a human being, and therefore murder. (Worse – because it is your own offspring.) They will deny this (a) to get themselves off the hook, and (b) because babies can’t fight back (might is right????). Eeugh.
You are confusing the legal with the justifiably legal. And in doing so you are either joining or affirming the ranks of the might is right dictators / those content to kill. Not pretty.
No I don’t lose the ‘debate’ as you have already preconceived your view anyway. In terms of the bible law is more important as that is what the bible is based on, laws and guides for humanity (though no doctor will say a 12 week foetus is a human being let alone a 6 week one anyway).
The law in the uk defines the actus reus of murder as the unlawful killing of another person in the Queen’s peace. The case of AG ref 1994 in 1998 affirmed that a foetus is not classed as a human being and therefore a person who kills a foetus cannot be charged with murder, only manslaughter or more frequently child destruction (if the foetus dies after the period the law defines as it being capable of being viable).
The Ten commandments forbid murder, which as above does not include abortion. Nowhere else is abortion mentioned in the Bible, so as I said abortion is not forbidden by the Bible.
Simon,
You seem to believe that law is the ultimate moral authority—since UK law does not class a pre-24-week foetus as a human being, you argue abortion cannot be murder. That is a profoundly dangerous line of reasoning. Law is not infallible, nor is it a substitute for truth. You cite AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) as though legal rulings determine what a human being is. They do not. Legal status is a category distinct from moral or biological reality.
Your argument ultimately rests on an arbitrary line: 24 weeks. Yet this is a moving target, not a fundamental truth. Survival rates at 22, 23, or 24 weeks vary by hospital, resources, and medical technology—not by a change in the nature of the child. The fact that a child may or may not survive at a given point does not alter the reality of what the child is.
As the Church of England states:
“The Church of England combines principled opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be strictly limited conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative. This is based on our view that the foetus is a human life with the potential to develop relationships, think, pray, choose and love.”
This position is rooted in the inherent value of life, not in an arbitrary legal threshold. A human being does not suddenly acquire moral worth at 24 weeks, any more than a newborn acquires moral worth by being born. The shift from womb to outside does not alter the essence of the child.
You argue, “the Bible is based on laws and guides for humanity”, but you overlook the most fundamental law: the command to love our neighbour. The unborn, however small, are our neighbours. You also say “no doctor will say a 12-week foetus is a human being”. This is simply false. Biologically, the child is a living human organism from conception. That is not theology or politics—it is scientific fact.
3. The Biblical Ethos
While there is no explicit prohibition of abortion in the Bible, the biblical witness overwhelmingly affirms the value of human life from conception. Consider:
Psalm 139: God’s intimate involvement in forming us in the womb.
Luke 1: John the Baptist, filled with the Spirit, leaping in his mother’s womb.
Exodus 21:22–25: A law protecting unborn life, treating harm to a pregnant woman or her child as a serious offense.
The Incarnation: God Himself took on human flesh not at birth, but at conception (Luke 1:31).
You reduce Scripture to a list of legal prescriptions, but the moral trajectory of the Bible points us to a profound reverence for life, especially for the vulnerable. The absence of a specific command does not give us license to discard that trajectory.
Finally, you claim:
“The Ten Commandments forbid murder, which as above does not include abortion.”
But this is a legal sleight of hand. The commandment forbids the unjust taking of innocent life. That the state does not currently define a foetus as a “person” does not mean it is morally permissible to kill one. Laws can be unjust—history is full of examples where legal status has been wrongly withheld from groups of people.
And crucially, the Church of England does not endorse the idea that personhood begins only at viability. Synod has been clear:
“The Church of England continues to oppose abortion in principle… based on our view that the foetus is a human life with the potential to develop relationships, think, pray, choose and love.”
This is not a marginal or debated position within the Church; it is the official stance articulated repeatedly by the House of Bishops and Synod.
Simon, you are mistaking legal constructs for moral reality. I urge you to reconsider, not just because the Church of England holds this position, but because truth, reason, and compassion demand it.
And finally—if, as is threatened, the legal status quo changes and we end up with abortion permitted up to birth, what then? Will you still let the law dictate your moral understanding, even if it permits the killing of a child moments before delivery? Or will you recognise that moral truth cannot be determined by legal decree?
If you are so in favour of the C of E position and endorse the will of Synod that “The Church of England combines principled opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be strictly limited conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative. This is based on our view that the foetus is a human life with the potential to develop relationships, think, pray, choose and love.” Then presumably you also will endorse the will of Synod for PLF for same sex couples in services, being all in favour of loving thy neighbour and all?
Why would I do that? It’s your argument that synod are a infalliable, magisterial, theological fountain of truth, not mine – I just call you to consistancy.
Synod are correct in this instance because they align with the formularies of the CofE, the historic position of the church, and most importantly, the witness of scripture.
they may be wrong about other things.
Lol, Simon has so many answers, yet within all of those answers he has not even addressed the three quedstions that he has been asked three times each at least. It is clear why he has not addressed them and is not capable of doing so. Yet in such circumstances as that he still wants to claim he has not lost the argument. And wearies others by making them repeat for the 4th or 5th time the unanswered questions which have defeated his position (which was not difficult):
-Viability date is relevant to the premature, and those who deceitfully try to make it relevant to the vast majority of babies who are not prematiure are minded to have babies killed off;
-What is the nonsense about no-one thinking humans in their early stages are humans? Simon has never been able to say what species they are. Secondly he has never been able to say how one species magically changes into another. Thirdly he has never been able to say when. Fourthly, he has never been able to cite any experts that agree that species can change from one to another.
-Then he thinks that ‘law’ (constantly changing from age to age and place to place) which is made by non experts who have power over those who have none, and who want popularity and votes, is more authoritative than science or reality. Any takers for that?
Now watch – will a new record be set for question avoidance but still claiming not to have lost the debate?
Does T1 think reality changed or science changed when it was magisterially pronounced by the might is right cruel brigade that a human before a certain age does not count as a human (much like thy said of slaves at an earlier date)? Yes/No.
He says I have a preconceived view. What is based on logic and evidence is neither preconceived nor a mere view. His own world is denominational and synodic fundamentalism and infallibility. Which is ideology above either logic or evidence, which is why noone of intelligence is likely to take it deriously.
‘Law’ is highly convenient to those who want to impose an alternative parallel [non-]reality that suits their interests.
No doctor thinks a 12-week-old human is human?
More to the point, find me even one doctor who assigns to any other species than human?
I have never read sheerer nonsense.
Not one member of the medical profession is the slightest bit concerned to preserve life or to do no harm? In what fantasy world? In what conscience-dead state?
“Something needs to change”
Indeed Ian, well what might that something be or look like?
There is a wonderful illustration in GENESIS 26 V 18ff of the wells of Abraham had been filled in, clogged up, by the Philistines.
Isaac had to put some effort into unblocking them and when he did the Philistines claimed the waters were theirs; this happened twice and Isaac named the wells,
Esek, contention and Sitnah, enmity; for their opposition was developing into bitter persecution.
26:22 And he removed from thence, and digged another well; and for that they strove not: and he called the name of it Rehoboth; [ Rehoboth, wide open spaces.] and he said, For now the LORD hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.
God led him back to Beersheba; The name Beersheba in Hebrew, “בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע” (Bəʾēr Ševaʿ), means “well of seven” or “well of oaths”[the well of promises?]. The “seven” in the name is likely a reference to the seven ewe lambs offered by Abraham as a sign of an oath with Abimelech in Genesis 21:31. The name is also linked to the word “oath” (שבע shava).
The number 7 holds significant symbolic meaning in the Bible, often representing completion, perfection, and divine intervention. It appears frequently throughout both the Old and New Testaments, appearing over 700 times, and is associated with key events and concepts.
Isaac continued digging and found a well of living water [remember that one? -Jesus] The water of life!
No doubt our wells have been filled in through unbelieving Liberals and dead orthodoxy and wandering evangelicals, in such cases perhaps only Resurrection Life is possible.
Not wishing to outstay my welcome perhaps take a look at a sermon on this by Lloyd Jones on Dead Orthodoxy et al, @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTCTWwDo49s
Very apposite to our day.
I have worshipped at St Peter’s Church in the centre of Derby since my retirement from stipendiary ministry 18 years ago. Much of our building is 700+ years old with evidence of an earlier pre-Conquest structure. Our Patron is CPAS. Our Sunday congregation (60-70) is multi-ethnic and includes some younger married couples with growing families. As in all city-centre churches new people come and go weekly. The Founder and former Director of Derby City Mission is one of our licensed Readers. He directs a weekly prayer group on Zoom, and witness on the busy pedestrianised street outside the church during the summer months. Native white-British passers-by totally ignore us. But people from overseas backgrounds show more interest and sometimes join the Sunday worship. Homelessness is a major challenge inmore ways than one. Church growth? Very slow, but we are not discouraged.
Quite a lot of “Apologetics “going on here!
The problems/deficiencies of apologetics are interestingly observed by Lloyd Jones in his sermon *Dead Orthodoxy*
@ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTCTWwDo49s
as intimated in an earlier post.
MLJ a one-time doctor, I find, is quite adept at observing
Theological, doctrinal, religious / spiritual malaise whose mission does seem to be “the cure of souls” in the best traditions of the Scriptures and the Church.
Further, one might suggest a good soak in the 1st of Corinthians
[the 2nd for an uplift]
1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
…… 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
It seems to me that our problems are not so much organizational but deeply Spiritual, hence the change{s} we seek must of necessity be Spiritual; just as Paul continues, to begin with the Cross and ever afterwards.
Perhaps, before Jesus returns, as at His first, we need an Elijah/John the Baptist to do a bit of real disturbing of the churches.
However as MLJ points out churches are very averse to disturbers of this stamp.
Regarding ‘the comment by a cathedral dean on Facebook this week: Dear Friends, I have been reflecting on my faith, ministry and life and want to say unapologetically, that I am… ‘
I have made a point since I was ordained NOT to refer to the ministry I exercise on behalf of Jesus Christ as ‘My ministry’. It should not be so. It is Christ’s ministry we are leading and directing. When the focus is on ‘I’, we are not giving Christ our all. I think if many ministers could get this right, then perhaps the ministry they exercise will be more fruitful!