Angela Tilby, in her weekly column in the Church Times, has claimed that the Church of England is pastoral and not missional. But she can only do this by being highly selective from the ordinal, from the text of John 10, and from the Church’s own theology of mission.
Angela Tilby is a retired Canon in the Church of England, and writes a short weekly column in the Church Times. Last week, her column boldly argued:
Mission of Church of England is primarily pastoral.
She argues this by noting that: within the ordination services in the Book of Common Prayer and Common Worship, a primary image of those ordained presbyter (‘priest’) and bishop is of being a shepherd; that this image is drawn primarily from John 10; and that it is about knowing and being known by the flock, rather than engaging in evangelistic mission amongst those who are not (yet) known.
By drawing on these texts at ordinations, the Church of England commits itself to a ministry that is, in essence, pastoral. It is about “the cure of souls”. Priests and bishops are meant to be committed to people and place, knowing their people and being known by them.
Yet, for well over decade, the C of E has been questioning this understanding of ordained ministry. A more mission-focused ministry has been urged in recent years, to counter the falling numbers of worshippers and replace those who are dying off.
She contrasts this historic pastoral orientation with a more recent emphasis on evangelistic mission. And seeks to seal her argument with a critique of schemes to combine historic parishes into unmanageable and unwieldy multi-parish benefices.
Earlier this month, the Church Commissioners considered a scheme that is already being implemented in Truro diocese (News, 1 May). This is to merge 16 parishes, comprising 21 places of worship, into a single giant benefice, with only three paid and ordained area clergy, one of whom, as a pioneer, is to focus on mission, and a house-for-duty priest. Five vicarages are to be transferred to the diocese.
As in other diocesan-led schemes, this represents a takeover of power and resources. While parishes are deprived of paid live-in priests, diocesan staff are increased in number and expected to “run” the diocese from the diocesan office. Meanwhile, more and more local responsibility falls on retired clergy and the laity.
Her argument has drawn lots of comment on social media, and it has been expressed both by her and by others previously, so it is worth engaging with. To do so, we need to reflect further on the ordinal, reflect on John 10 and the image of shepherd, and (slightly separately) consider the situation of dioceses like Truro.
The ordination of bishops in the Book of Common Prayer has some interesting things worth noting. The readings are to be from either 1 Tim 3.1–7 (about the appointments of overseers) or Acts 20.17–35 (Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders, including the fascinating agraphon ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’) and the gospel readings are either John 21.15–17 (Jesus’ recommissioning of Peter), John 20.19–23 (Jesus breathes on the disciples), or Matt 28.18–20 (the great commission). Whilst these readings do have what might be read as static and pastoral images (‘feed my sheep’ John 21.17), they are not without their evangelistic/missional elements.
One of the most striking are in Acts 20.20–22, where Paul reminds the Ephesian elders of his ministry ‘from house to house’ and ‘I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus’—hardly cosy sheep-keeping. And of course the other is in Matt 28.19:
go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this has something to do with the ministry of bishops in the Church of England. And to reinforce this, the invitation to the congregation to prayer includes this reflection from Acts 13 (which was key for me in thinking about God’s call to ordination):
It is written also in the Acts of the Apostles, that the disciples who were at Antioch did fast and pray, before they laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, and sent them forth.
This was the beginning of Paul’s so-called first missionary journey, travelling through the south central region of what we now call Turkey, and planting congregations in each town.
There are, of course, many elements of the service which appear to assume a static model of the church, which is hardly surprising given the ‘Christendom’ context of the Prayer Book. And yet the missional elements keep rearing their heads—this one in the prayer immediately before the laying on of hands:
Grant, we beseech thee, to this thy servant such grace, that he may evermore be ready to spread abroad thy Gospel, the glad tidings of reconciliation with thee; and use the authority given him, not to destruction, but to salvation; not to hurt, but to help…
The language of ‘the glad tidings of reconciliation’ is an echo of Paul’s summary of his gospel in 2 Cor 5.19–20:
God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
Angela, in her article, quotes from the charge that goes with the giving of the Bible: ‘Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd, not a wolf; feed them, devour them not…’ but then signally fails to continue the quotation:
…Hold up the weak, heal the sick, bind up the broken, bring again the outcasts, seek the lost. (emphasis added!)
Even in sixteenth and seventeenth-century England, the lost are to be sought.
From the ordination of presbyters (‘priests’) in Common Worship, Angela quotes:
Remember always with thanksgiving that the treasure now to be entrusted to you is Christ’s own flock, bought by the shedding of his blood on the cross.
But they have already been reminded that they are to be:
messengers, watchmen and stewards of the Lord; they are to teach and to admonish, to feed and provide for his family, to search for his children in the wilderness of this world’s temptations, and to guide them through its confusions, that they may be saved through Christ for ever…
With all God’s people, they are to tell the story of God’s love. They are to baptize new disciples in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and to walk with them in the way of Christ, nurturing them in the faith.
I wonder where these new disciples are to come from, if this ministry is not as much missional as pastoral?
Angela complains at the Bishop of Truro’s comments she quotes, that ‘a priest-centred model of ministry is not supported by the formularies of the Church of England.’ But he is right in this sense: it is not about ordained ministry being an end in itself. Note this in the introduction to ordination of deacons:
God calls his people to follow Christ, and forms us into a royal priesthood, a holy nation, to declare the wonderful deeds of him who has called us out of darkness into his marvellous light.
The Church is the Body of Christ, the people of God and the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit. In baptism the whole Church is summoned to witness to God’s love and to work for the coming of his kingdom.
To serve this royal priesthood, God has given a variety of ministries. Deacons are ordained so that the people of God may be better equipped to make Christ known.
And note this in the ordination of presbyters:
Will you lead Christ’s people in proclaiming his glorious gospel, so that the good news of salvation may be heard in every place?
In other words, this evangelistic ministry belongs to the whole people of God—but the ordained have a particular responsibility to enable them to do this.
In relation to this, it is worth reflecting a little on the image of Jesus as the good shepherd in John 10. Our chapter divisions do not help us in this regards, since most ordinary readers of the fourth gospel often see John 10 in detachment from John 9. But the monologue by Jesus about the good shepherd, starting at John 10.1, in fact is a continuation of his dialogue with the Pharisees, which has been provoked by his healing of the man born blind in the previous chapter.
Although the discourse about the good shepherd might at first be seen as an intra-community dispute (between Jesus and the Pharisees, an intra-Jewish disagreement), it cannot be separated from the seeking of the lost to join the community of the Messiah.
Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” “Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.” Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.” Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him (John 9.35–38).
Within the ‘good shepherd’ discourse itself, there are distinctively missional elements. Drawing on the language and practice of sheep-rearing in the first century, Jesus describes his work as the good shepherd: ‘he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out’ (John 10.3). This is not merely pastoral care for an already-existing flock. There is an act of separation and reconstitution. In Johannine theology, Jesus gathers people out from existing religious and social structures into a new messianic community centred on himself.
Even more strikingly, this messianic community is going to draw others:
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd (John 10.16).
This is a clear reference to the Gentile mission, later expressed as Jesus dying ‘not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad’ (John 11.52). The language here is very similar to Paul’s language of ‘those who are near [Jews] and those who are far off [gentiles]’ being formed into ‘one body by the cross’ in Ephesians 2.16.
And the very next chapter in John is the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. So it is hard to see how we can separate off being ‘shepherds’ from [evangelistic] mission, when for Jesus it meant making the blind see, gathering those who are far off, and bringing life to the dead.
It can hardly be surprising, then, that in Luke’s ‘parables of the lost,’ the first person we meet is a shepherd who leaves his flock of 99 in order to search out the lost sheep (Luke 15.1–7). And Jesus tells this parable precisely because the Pharisees were complaining at Jesus spending time and energy with those on the outside, who were clearly less deserving than the flock!
Angela’s final complaint is of quite a different nature—the loss of clergy in each town and village, and the amalgamation of benefices.
This is to merge 16 parishes, comprising 21 places of worship, into a single giant benefice, with only three paid and ordained area clergy, one of whom, as a pioneer, is to focus on mission, and a house-for-duty priest. Five vicarages are to be transferred to the diocese.
As in other diocesan-led schemes, this represents a takeover of power and resources.
What has led to this dire situation? There are two, or perhaps three, causes.
First, according to the attendance figures (which you can download here), since 2009, Truro diocese has seen a fall of 42% in its average weekly attendance upon to 2024 (see this article on growth in the C of E for an explanation of terminology), a rate of decline of 2.8% per year, significantly highly that the C of E overall which has declined by 35% overall in that time period. And since 2019, prior to Covid, the decline has been 22% in just five years, a rate of 4.4% per year.
So one reason why action is needing to be taken appears to be that, overall, people in the diocese have been following Angela’s line, and believing that we just need to be pastoral, and not at all missional. As a result, we have here failed to pass the good news of Jesus on to either our children or our neighbours. The crisis that Angela is complaining of is created precisely by the strategy she is advocating.
Secondly, as I have previously reported, we are facing a catastrophic collapse in vocations. So even if the money were there, there would be no clergy to be employed. And related to this is the question of finance.
These issues are neatly summed up by someone in the diocese, responding in the Church Times letters to her kind of criticism.
We have lived in Cornwall for more than 30 years. When we came, there was a priest, it appeared, in every village and town in our deanery—possibly more than 20. One would have hoped that this would lay the foundation for thriving churches. Sadly, it was not so. When we came to look at the fruitfulness and sustainability of our deanery in the present day, we discovered that we could afford only three oversight ministers and one house-for-duty priest. How do we cope with that reality?
Clergy in the past have not enabled the thriving of churches. And clergy in the present are short on the ground. Why? In part because, instead of ‘remembering always with thanksgiving that the treasure now to be entrusted to you is Christ’s own flock,’ the House of Bishops has both neglected clergy wellbeing and inflicted on us a decade of demoralising dispute about sexuality.
Angela’s selectivity from both the ordinal and the New Testament symbolises for me the selectivity that so much of the Church of England has been guilty off in recent decades. We will choose to do the things that Jesus calls us to which we find less challenging—caring for those who already come—but select out those things that we just find a little too difficult—being sent on evangelistic mission, planting churches, making disciples, teaching them all that Jesus has taught us, seeking the lost.
We confess at every point that ‘the Church of England is part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church,’ and the requirement that we are apostolic—messengers sent out with a message to proclaim to those who have not yet heard it—is not something we can simply ignore by the false claim that we are merely ‘pastoral.’
Buy me a Coffee
Well said.
Thanks
I’m not a C. of E. person – and am ignorant of the structures, etc …. so the point of view may seem naive. I think my first basic question is: how are the terms ‘pastoral’ and ‘missional’ understood in the C. of E.? Because, when it comes to the pastor (priest, vicar, minister) I’m not sure I see the sharp distinction.
The Mission should be to bring people under the conviction of sin – and show them that they can be right with God through (and only through) Christ and His redemptive work on their behalf. In practical terms, if preaching is done properly, it is exactly the same message that convicts people of their sins and presents Christ as the only answer (the missional side of things) which brings comfort to the forgiven sinner (the pastoral side of things). The same sermon should do both.
There is much in the piece about C. of E. structures and I suppose you have to have had experience of the C. of E. to know the role that everybody is supposed to play. I think about a Fishermen’s Meeting Hall fellowship from the 1950’s that was described to me – where there wasn’t a designated ‘leader’, but rather they all contributed with a word, prayer or song which, in the context of Ian Paul’s piece above would meet the ‘pastoral’ side of things (where they encouraged each other and built each other up Spiritually – and didn’t need a specially designated pastor) and then through the week (when they were out at work fishing) there was the ‘missional’ side of things – where they presented the gospel message to those of their colleagues who were prepared to listen.
Yes, I think I agree with you—pastoral and missional cannot be strictly divided.
But Angela, in her piece, tries to make a distinction, and I am trying to demonstrate that there isn’t one.
You are correct in two ways.
First concerning the lack of division, the integration.
Second concerning the fact that missional should not be excluded: the very thought.
Thanks for this very helpful and timely article. Pastoral and Missional cannot be strictly divided. I guess generally, the ‘pastoral’ is taken to mean ministry among and to the gathered flock, while ‘missional’ refers to outreach to those who are not yet members.
Reflecting on Parish ministry, the two overlap a lot in many or most of our church’s activities. These routinely gather some blend of established church members, ‘fringe’ members, plus newcomers and visitors. So I guess ministers need to ponder ‘what pastoring, AND mission, might God be calling for and empowering on any given occasion?’
A further, unformed and speculative thought: is the CHURCH, when it is functioning as a genuinely PASTORAL community, a visible, MISSIONAL expression of the Gospel? I think Michael Ramsey believed so.
Thanks. More than that, if we invite people to discover life in Jesus, they need to experience a transformed community that points to his love.
So they must belong together.
Agreed Jock, definitions would be helpful if one is to address the vagaries of the church.
Reading this, if one were contemplating ordination, might leave one demanding a very loud “call “, perhaps at the very least,given by an angel.
It would seem to me to be a difficulty that runs far deeper than mere structures of management.
Christ is well aware of the deficiencies but where are the Over-comers?
Are there any current examples which might encourage and inspire, build up, edify, motivate?
I perhaps might recommend to all concerned, a good soak[at least a week] in James’s ’ letter, perhaps to bring God into the conversation?
My perception is that the 20th century Church of England has seen their parish priests as those who to care for the flock on an exclusively pastoral model, with a innate presumption that people would just turn up to sustain the congregation. Evangelicals who were active in church growth were largely frowned upon in the last quarter of the 21st century. This has given way in more recent times to a split as to whether the parish priest should care for their declining churches, maintaining orderly self-focused ministry, or seek to reverse the decline through proactive outreach, which is, I think, where we are now, at this place of confusion and disputation. It would be so helpful if dioceses consistently supported growing churches; some do, some are rather more reluctant and some are highly selective, seeing “Resource Churches” as ticking the box while embracing a self-focused pastoral model. I hope that in the second quarter of this century we can achieve a ministry with a ministerial balance that will take us forward and not leave us declining towards total insignificance in the life of our nation
But is it too late? The figures from Truro are stunning: a 50% drop in 18 years. Isn’t that already ‘terminal’ in most senses? And worse to come?
The Church Commissioners have billions in assets, share income and rental income. The C of E could largely sustain its pastoral mission, clergy and parishes from that income regardless of the size of its congregation. It is not like purely charismatic evangelical non Anglican churches which have no such inherited wealth and therefore need large congregations alone to fund them
Simon, rather bizarrely, and contrary to the C of E’s own doctrine, you appear to think that the people don’t actually matter very much.
I don’t know where you get this idea from.
Well they do matter in part of course but as the C of E has lots of inherited wealth and investment and rental income its churches could be funded largely from that. It doesn’t need large congregations to fund it as say Baptist or Pentecostal or to an extent Methodist churches do
‘In part’. How extraordinary. The Simon Baker version of the ordinal:
‘Remember always with thanksgiving that the treasure now to be entrusted to you
is Christ’s own flockis the £11bn assets and all those buildings, bought by theshedding of his blood on the crossrich people of the past.’You are the one who wants to close lots of village churches so villagers have no local church to worship in
In practice, it is often neither
Aren’t some of your quotes addressed to the whole church, not just the clergy, whatever clergy were in NT times? Surely it’s both and? The clergy and laity both have responsibilities for mission, pastoral care, worship (which the clergy normally lead) and service of the community/working for justice (where arguably the laity are to the fore.) The clergy should lead and inspire everyone to do all these things, shouldn’t they, although I would agree that there is a particular pastoral role for clergy?
Yes indeed they are. But Angela is saying that it is the priest’s job, and not the laity (see Facebook thread).
And I think the bishop’s comment was agreeing with you. But Angela thinks that is wrong.
A church that is not missional will die. The Church of England has plenty of opportunity not only to the huge number of secular people in England but also to the Muslim community. Wouldn’t it be great to hear a bishop say that?
Yes it would!
It won’t die if it still sustains some of its existing congregations and their children and has large inherited assets and income. Though yes it won’t grow very much
So you think that an institution with money and buildings but no people is still ‘a church’? Where do you get such an idea from?
Well it would still have some people even if only 1 person was in attendance weekly but the Church of England is a church preserving historic churches and cathedrals for the nation as much as one holding weekly services, weddings, funerals and baptisms
I am old and crippled and I am not allowed to preach in CofE much as I want to. It is only people licensed by officials who can and I am not qualified.
Never forget that the central letter of the Greek word diocese has Christ’s initial chi in the middle and we have made it a bloke in a frock.
I am sorry to hear that.
Actually, I think diocese comes from dia + oikos meaning household, so it has a kappa and not a chi in the middle.
In our church[C of E] we collectively are trying to bring God into the conversation, thank God. James 1 v 5
We know what we ought to be and do but the problem is knowing How to do it. James 1 v 1 – 10. Shalom.
Never in the field of human and church conflict is so much owed to so many by so few.
When a church is of “one mind “ however small and lacking in resources and obeys God’s call to “Seek My Face”
regardless of the trials and difficulties [meant to perfect us]
God has His Over-comers [Think Jacob] who will not let Him Go
until He gives what we ask.
God always has overcome with the few resourceless, weapon less, armour less overcoming people.{Think the Judges in the “Acts”
of the OT. ] Shalom.
At Diocesan Synod some years ago a paper was presented by the DDO proposed that the diocese ordained a number of permanent Deacons. His claim was thar priestly ministry was inward facing, calling people to the Lord’s Table whereas the Diaconate was outward facing in service. The paper was enthusiastically received and Synod voted in favour. After that nothing.9
Thanks, Richard. I don’t remember that paper; if I had, I would have challenged it!
It is core to C of E ministry that, when ordained to another order of ministry, you never leave the previous one. The idea that being a presbyter (priest) is only inward looking is patent nonsense.
But can you not put both parts together? The priesthood adds an inward element of drawing us to the table, while not making smaller that deacon service to the outsider.
But note that the C of E does not have ‘priesthood’ in the usual sense. We have a presbyterate which serves the priestly people of God.
Is pastoral ever defined? What does it include? Are there any boundaries, limits?
Doesn’t it include counseling with scripture?
Do sheep include all people in the Parish, not only those on the church roll.
Does it include eternal matters?
Does it include preaching the gospel? Scriptural imperatives?
Does it include the one lost
sheep, rather than the 99?
Is there a numerical limit to the flock to successfully shepherd?
…. I’m exhausted and always was for such a calling.
What did Jesus do? How? Where? And Why? And for how long? As the Good Shepherd?
And what about false shepherds and their practice?
As established church all people in the Parish are included, so that makes the C of E somewhat missional anyway, Vicars are expected to turn up at the village Fete, Town Christmas Market, Remembrance Parades, school concerts etc not just at church services
All the parish are included as what? Does living in a parish make you a Christian?
It makes you a member of our established church in England yes
All in the parish are included under the “cure of souls”. The PP has a duty of care to all, he is not pastor of a gathered congregation but minister to all those intrusted to his care: if that is not both pastoral and missional I don’t know what is!
When I was asked if I were the “Vicar of St. X”, I’d reply “I’m the rector/vicar of the parish of M”.
When we think of unity what do we imagine it looks like?
First it seems from the Psalmist that the individual needs to be “united”
In Heart and Mind . then a remnant is so united , Solomon asked for a wise heart, he was a builder of the house of God. Jesus was one with the Father and only did those things which pleased God. Hence He is enabled to build His Church, and what a world encompassing church at that.
One of the Puritan Divines[I think Sibbes in his famous 1630 book,The Bruised Reed]
He used the metaphor to describe the church as a sanctuary for spiritually broken and hurting people, rather than a place exclusively for the perfect or righteous.This concept has been echoed by other prominent Christian figures throughout history
We need to be made whole as was the prayer of one unfortunate whom Jesus healed
The Psalmist of Ps.68 prayed for a United Heart Psalm 86:11
[See Enduring Word’s excellent commentary]
Paul’s longing for the church was to be of a single mind because he feared that they may be drawn away from the “simplicity of Christ” “that they might be one whole Father as we are.”
When we are whole we are enabled to make others whole but a double-minded man or company is unstable in all it’s ways.
It’s something of a false choice. You can’t just be pastoral. But you also can’t just be missional. Different wings of the church have made these mistakes. I can certainly think of churches that are fine talking about being pastoral, but very reluctant to see themselves as missional. But I’ve also been in evangelical churches that were very keen on being missional, but had no interest at all in pastoral approaches. Really you need both. And perhaps one of the missing elements that join it together is witness. If you don’t have a strong pastoral approach, can you generate meaningful witness? If you aren’t witnessing in your community, what sort of mission are you hoping to generate?
On the latter question, for a diocese to halve in attendance in 18 years, they appear to have ignored that last question.
I’m reluctant to comment too directly on a diocese I haven’t set foot in in 30 years, but…
If West Wivelshire Deanery has gone from 20+ clergy 30 years ago to maybe only 4 today (assuming no vacancies) then a part of the story is the collapse of clergy numbers. I don’t think the diocese sacked 16 vicars in the last 5 years…
Well, I am only citing someone who has actually lived there for 30 years. His verdict? All those clergy did not stop the churches collapsing, for some reason…
Without clergy in Parish churches inevitably that will reduce church presence there and without a visible stable figure in the wider community
Simon, you have a bizarrely clericalised view of the C of E which is not supported by the Church’s own doctrine.
Article XXXVI makes clear the C of E is a church of consecrated bishops and clergy
Hebrews 13:20-21
“Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
I can’t get my head around her missional -light view of the Church. Does God only equip us for a happy club life. It’s almost, as you show, completely devoid of a holistic New Testament ethos. “Go and make disciples…”
We do need to be pastoral inside and outside the church walls…but maybe we forget that shepherds carried weapons. There’s a war on to save the lost and witnessing is involved.
I’d rejoice to hear a bishop proclaim Jesus the only saviour.. saving from sin and death. Context and manner would be important, obviously, but “in/out of season” still stands. More likely to hear another net zero environment statement . There’s clearly an environmental issue but we have a more fundamental calling. Have we committed too much to someone else’s bandwagon?
I find it hard to engage with the idea of a church that isn’t missional, but I recognise that other people do. I think on its own terms, the argument is tricky for the reasons you refer to. It’s not ultimately about clergy numbers, but a vision of a thriving church. What does a thriving church, that blesses the communities it inhabits, look like today? If you’re going to be pastoral, then get out there among the community pastoring as hard as you can. Be careful though: In bringing God’s love to those in need – pastorally – you might end up accidentally being missional 🙂
In a battalion in WWI, for example, what was the ratio between fighting men and everyone else. Is the church likewise differentiated between mission and pastoral in the same way?
The comment I made this morning was somewhat naive – I now remember something that a Church of Scotland minister said that perhaps gives the perspective. He was saying that the C. of S. had traditionally not been a missionary church (I think he might be wrong here), because it didn’t have to be; he said that now it has to be in order to survive.
Reason: in previous generations, everybody got baptised. It wasn’t simply the fact of being baptised; it is what it represented. They were basically all ‘in’, albeit nominally (even though many didn’t darken the doors of the church very often) and didn’t have a problem with being members. The job of the church was to look after them.
Nowadays, people *don’t* get their children baptised – and aren’t even members – so (he concluded) that it is now necessary for the church to be ‘missional’ in a way that was not necessary before.
(I checked the guy out because he took the funeral of one of my friends – I found a lecture he gave at Edinburgh University on the internet).
I’d suggest that a wrong view of the ‘pastoral’ role of the church – and trying to separate it from the ‘missional’ might give a very good explanation as to the catastrophic decline of the C. of S. and also the C. of E.. Ever heard of the offense of the cross? In plain English, Angela Tillby is trying to eradicate the offense of the cross. Of course, the offense of the cross is going to be off-putting, but without it, ‘the church’ is simply a social club – and, if the offense of the cross has been eradicated, there are more interesting social clubs available (e.g. the local chess club).
Thank you for this Ian, I think this gets to the heart of one of the main problems in the CoE today, in that, for the most part it seems, we often function as though we do not really believe what Scripture says about the destiny of unbelievers.
If verses such as John 3:36, Romans 10:14 and Revelation 20:15 are truly “God’s word written”, then how can the love of God be in us if we do not have the attitude that “by all possible means” we might save some? Paul’s urgency about the gospel, and his desire to be free from the “blood of all men”, only makes sense if eternal realities are truly at stake.
This also makes the common distinction between “pastoral” and “missional” ministry seem unhelpful to me, at least in the way those terms are often used today. It is a distinction only really possible once the gospel itself is separated from pastoral ministry. In Richard Baxter’s timeless classic “The Reformed Pastor”, pastoral visitation centred heavily on preaching the gospel in people’s homes. The fruit of his ministry was extraordinary.
During my LLM training in the CoE, I remember one session in which we were asked, “How important is it that we evangelise people of other religions?” We had to stand in a line according to how strongly we felt either way. In the end, no line formed, just two groups clustered at opposite sides of the room.
What an odd question. Important in comparison to who?
In comparison to people of no specific religious affiliation.
A surprising number of people in the C of E, including senior leaders, appear to think that, as long as a person has some kind of religious faith, that is fine.
I recall a person preaching this – but all the power drained from his voice at precisely the moment when he enunciated the principle.
It is a principle inimical to truth.
Relatedly, holding to this principle or not is a barometer of how much one cares for others. (Compare holding tight to the principle of not criticising ethnic minorities and allowing many secondary schoolchildren to be maltreated as the cost of this.)
However, if someone said that acknowledging or deferring to higher/invisible authority is better than a self-centred free for all, they would probably be right in that sub-point.
The Royal Geographical Society some years ago hosted a debate on whether secularism or islamification was the greater threat, and on my calculation the former was relatively greater, though the vote went the other way.
Thanks Sam. Yes, the great hidden issue in the C of E is Universalism (which I am doing some work on).
Many simply don’t believe that coming to faith in Jesus actually matters that much.
Interesting that you mention universalism. The Church of England vicar at my local LEP church devoted a sermon and several teaching sessions to what she called “Evangelical Universalism” based on a book by Robin Parry, aka Gregory MacDonald. She preached that “a person’s eternal destiny is not fixed at death. People can still repent and so be saved. Everyone will do this.”
Bob Edmonds – do you mean Gregory MacDonald – or George MacDonald?
George MacDonald was a universalist – and I find myself hugely uneasy with what he wrote – but he was a great influence on C.S. Lewis (who mentions – in ‘Surprised by Joy’ that one of the most important parts of his conversion was picking up a book by George MacDonald at a railway station book stall. I wouldn’t recommend the book). Also, in ‘The Great Divorce’, he has an imaginary conversation with said George MacDonald.
A universalist, which C.S. Lewis most definitely isn’t – but one who had a profound effect on C.S. Lewis.
Robin Parry wrote his book The Evangelical Universalist under the pseudonym of Gregory MacDonald.
Ah – OK – thanks – then I understand. And it’s also clear to me why he chose this pseudonym!
I recognise this talk of Missional and pastoral from decades ago much wider than one denomination.
As an early “pioneer minister” i was asked to speak to ordinands about what pioneering might be. My understanding was that the church had only recognised 2 or 3 of the fivefold gifts that Paul equates to the fullness of Christ in the body. I follow the excellent Alan Hirsch in believing that the renewal of the fivefold ministries of Ephesians 4 in the church is the nearest thing we have to a silver bullet.
Pioneer ministry seemed to be the church remembering that the Apostolic, Prophetic and Evangelistic gifts need parity with Shepherding and Teaching. This has since been largely lost as we think gathering a smaller group of Christians into fewer yet larger churches amounts to good strategy. These good hearted churches are not really turning around decline but give the appearance of success. They are certainly better than shutting churches down.
Yet until we truly engage with our baptism (and ordinal) vows and live them out we will continue in Christendom despite it being a zombie bride. Christendom was a predominately pastoral set up. We now need a predominately Missional strategy.
The argument about the ordinal is a red herring.
thanks Dave. Yes, this is not a new discussion!
I agree that we need to recover the (four or) fivefold ministries in Ephesians. But I am not sure why discussing the ordinal is a red herring?
This does set up expectations. For Angela, the expectations found there are pastoral; I am pointing out that actually they are missional as well.
Do we need to revise the ordinal?
I’m not denying the importance of the ordinal. I still remember my ordination retreat after 22 years.
Does the Oxford Movement still has influence over the way we read the ordinal as a “catholic” text when the 1662 version is lower church and prior to that we were much more reformed?
It’s a red herring in this debate because there are both pastoral and missional aspects to it. It’s imperfect but solid. Our actions post-ordination are what we need to discuss. Though we need to squash any talk of ontological change as it is deeply unhelpful to a mobilised and empowered priesthood of all believers.
I am with you entirely in your criticism (nay, disbelief?) in the merging of parishes into giant benefices led by a small team sharing ministry among them all.
Yes, I understand that it is principally a decision of necessity, but anyone who looks at the Methodist circuit system (which this does appear to parallel) and says “yes, this system will work and be sustainable into the future” needs their head checking.
In my local area (The National Forest) everything is becoming ‘Minister Communities’, born from a similar idea and need, but my town is in the odd position of having two CofE clergy resident within 10mins walk of each other, representing two benefices, soon to be combined into one with addition of another dozen or so churches (I think). The two priests here in Ashby are likely going to be responsible for a wide range of different churches across three/four counties, despite both having their largest (main) church in the same town within walking distance.
Yes, I agree. The only better alternative is to mothball buildings, focus on population centres, and when those churches are growing again, replant.
But few have the courage to do that.
I don’t think the decisions are ‘a necessity’. I think they are the denial of necessity.
No, rural ministry is the heart of the Church of England, at the top along with cathedrals. Cities and large towns and populations have churches of every denomination to choose from, in rural villages and hamlets though it is normally only the Church of England which has a church, no other denomination is represented.
If churches in population centres are growing in congregation and funds and wish to use some of their funds to replant fine but central church funds should go into established Parish churches
‘rural ministry is the heart of the Church of England’ Why, when most people do not live there?
When it was established in the 16th century most of the English population still lived in rural areas. Even today most villages and hamlets only have a Church of England church. Whereas in towns and cities you can find churches of any denomination
And most practicing Anglicans live in urban areas.
So do most Roman Catholics, most Baptists, most Methodists, most Pentecostals, most Orthodox, most Quakers live in English urban areas. There is nothing uniquely Anglican about urban churches and urban ministry. Whereas rural ministry is still near uniquely Anglican in England, hence in rural churches like ours we have Roman Catholics and evangelicals from our villages both worshipping in the same Anglican church
The Church of England is of course a pastoral church with Bishops and providing the Eucharist as Angela Tilby correctly states. It is a Catholic but Reformed church which also contains some evangelicals engaged in evangelistic mission. It is not principally an evangelistic mission denomination though like say Pentecostals or the Baptist church or as the Methodist church historically was.
The proposal in Truro is of course a disaster. It would deny many towns and villages in Cornwall weekly communion with a parish priest in place in their local church. Hence I and 168 other members of Save the Parish wrote representations of objection over the plan to turn the deanery of 21 churches into one benefice to the Commissioners’ formal consultation on the parish reorganisation scheme. There were just 24 representations in favour. As a result earlier this month the Commissioners held a hearing on the proposal
‘The Church of England is of course a pastoral church with Bishops and providing the Eucharist as Angela Tilby correctly states’.
That is not what the doctrine of the C of E says about itself.
It is very odd that you think that the plan for reorganisation is a disaster, but you appear to think that the loss of half the diocese in church attendance is not.
Article XXXVI of the 39 Articles makes clear the C of E is a church which consecrates Bishops. The plan for reorganisation is an utter disaster, preventing large numbers of villages in that Cornish diocese from even getting weekly communion and of course would therefore inevitably accelerate church attendance decline. Hence Save the Parish and we its supporters are opposing the plan vigorously
And Article XIX says very clearly what the Church is:
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
‘..the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance’ so as that Article states and you quote the Cornish diocese could be denying villagers in it the weekly Communion and administration of the Sacraments which Article XIX entitles them to
92% of those in rural areas are within 10 minutes drive of a town church. I am not denying them anything.
From here you at least 15 minutes drive from the nearest town church and if you don’t drive you clearly couldn’t care less if you can no longer attend your church you could previously walk to. Rural churches are key to local villages some of whom no longer even have a post office or shop, pub or school but still have a church. Whereas urban churches are just one of many denominations churches and facilities in the town. Over the last few years we in the Save the Parish have built up funds, organisation, membership and activity and started electing members to Synod. Be assured we will protect and preserve our rural churches and ensure they receive their fair share of central C of E churches and be assured we will never give in
We will ensure our rural churches receive their fair share of central C of E funds