This seems to be a very good time to republish this article which I last posted three years ago in 2020, for at least two reasons. The first is that last weekend was the time for many to be ordained, so my social media feed was full of pictures of people being ordained, and so also full of mitres. My strong impression is that the number of mitres seemed to be higher this year than previously.
The second reason is to do with the current situation we find ourselves in as a Church. However you interpret them—either as signifying the authority to dispense the Spirit at ordination, an idea concocted from the supposed flame-like shape, or from their historical origins as ecclesial crowns—mitres signify power and institutional authority. At a time when the Church, and especially the episcopate, appear to be in the grip of a crisis of authority and credibility, it is striking that mitres are now so prominent. Could it be that the wearing of mitres is a last grasp at a power and authority that is ebbing away?
So bear with me, dear reader, and explore with me why Church of England bishops should ditch their mitres.
Why do Church of England bishops wear mitres? In our age of visual media, there is a tendency to reach for visual symbolism; it seems sometimes that those on television they don’t think they are actually talking to a bishop unless the person is wearing a purple cassock. But there are many reasons for saying goodbye to mitres once and for all.
The most obvious one is that mitres are singularly unflattering. I did once meet bishop on whom the mitre didn’t look completely stupid—but it was a long time ago, and said bishop has long retired. On most people they just look daft—ill-fitting, unflattering and awkward.
The second reason is rather important, and oddly is something that many people are not aware of (including, it seems, not a few bishops): wearing mitres is not particularly Anglican. The practice more or less ceased at the Reformation, and only crept back into use through the influence of the Oxford Movement at the end of the nineteenth century. Colin Buchanan, former Bishop of Woolwich, comments:
Edward King, Bishop of Lincoln 1885–1910, was the first English bishop generally reckoned to have worn a mitre. I suspect that Winnington-Ingram (Bp of London 1901–1939) and Lang (Stepney before 1909, then York till 1928, then Cantuar 1928-1942) really popularized the mitre—Lang was the first Canterbury to do so. No mitres were worn at George V’s coronation in 1911 (though there were questions about whether they should be wearing them), and bishops did wear mitres at George VI’s in 1937. It sits with (a) Roman theories of authority, (b) pomp, (c) self-inflation, and (d) the second generation factor—that folk think they are following a deeply entrenched tradition. It is not an admirable habit…
A number of bishops, including Maurice Wood, have made it clear from the start they would never wear one. I am ready to go a little way with those who really want me to (while telling them I think it is stupid). But they have to ask me—I never just reckon to wear one. And in liturgy I only wear it coming in and going out—it has no liturgical purpose.
So we need to note that the general wearing of mitres by bishops is a practice less than one hundred years old, and until quite recently it was far from universal.
The reasons for this lie in the origins of the use of a mitre. The biblical derivation comes from the headgear of the high priest who was to wear a ‘turban’ (mitznefet) which distinguished him from the other priests.
The turban worn by the High Priest was much larger than the head coverings of the priests and was wound so that it formed a broad, flat-topped turban, resembling the blossom of a flower. The head covering of the priests was different, being wound so that it formed a cone-shaped turban, called a migbahat.
This is set out in God’s instructions to Moses in Ex 28:
Tell all the skilled workers to whom I have given wisdom in such matters that they are to make garments for Aaron, for his consecration, so he may serve me as priest. These are the garments they are to make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a woven tunic, a turban and a sash. They are to make these sacred garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so they may serve me as priests. Have them use gold, and blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and fine linen. (Ex 28.3–4)
Alongside this, in the Orthodox Church the mitre is a symbol of power and authority, (perhaps originating with the inscribed plate attached to the turban which appears to be like a crown, Ex 39.30) and (like the papal tiara) is modelled on crowns from the Byzantine Empire.
(In all this, there are two wonderful ironies. The first is that, according to the Talmud [B. Zevachim 88b] the high priest’s turban is to remind him of the presumption and sin of the people.
The other is that the camouflaged ‘clown hat’ of the modern Israeli army is also called a miznefet after the turban of the high priest; it, too, has a function related to power and authority—but it, too, looks extremely silly.)
It is now becoming clear why bishops in the Church of England dropped the wearing of mitres from the Reformation onwards. A piece of attire which communicates absolute authority and sacerdotal priestly ministry has no place within Anglican understandings of ministry. I recently posted a picture of myself in suit and tie, and a friend commented ‘I see you are disguising yourself as a lay person’. I was doing no such thing; the Church of England’s theology of ordination does not remove the ordained from the laos, the people of God, but sets them apart in terms of training and supporting them to minister. They have authority to teach, but it is an authority within the people, as primus inter pares, first amongst equals.
I can never appeal to the authority of my teaching simply by dint of being ordained, by appeal to my office; I can only appeal to its correspondence with Scripture and the apostolic inheritance. Being ordained priest or presbyter, does not end one’s ministry as a deacon, and being ordained bishop or overseer does not end one’s ministry as either deacon or presbyter. By the same token, being ordained into any of these three historic orders does not remove the ordained from being part of the people of God. This understanding is captured rather nicely by the saying of St Augustine in his sermon on the anniversary of his ordination:
“Where I’m terrified by what I am for you, I am given comfort by what I am with you. For you I am a bishop; with you, after all, I am a Christian. The first is the name of an office undertaken, the second a name of grace; that one means danger, this one salvation. Finally, as if in the open sea, I am being tossed about by the stormy activity involved in that one; but as I recall by whose blood I have been redeemed, I enter a safe harbor in the tranquil recollection of this one; and thus while toiling away at my own proper office, I take my rest in the marvelous benefit conferred on all of us in common.
The modern revival of wearing of mitres by Church of England bishops signals in powerful terms the opposite, that they are a group set apart. The bishop who ordained me believed that mitres were vital, because their flame-shaped outline symbolised the bishop as the dispenser of the Holy Spirit at confirmations and ordinations, something the liturgy actually contradicts: at no point does the bishop pronounce ‘I ordain you’, since the language is all about what God (and not the bishop) is doing and of course it is God who bestows the Spirit.
Some years ago, Edward Dowler wrote in the Church Times about the symbolic importance of the vesture of ministers in response to comments by Pete Broadbent, the Bishop of Willesden. Dowler makes the observation:
Distinctive clothing for the clergy, or indeed anyone else, is never just decoration, dependent on a particular individual’s or community’s aesthetic taste. Like the clothing of our parent religion from which it is in part derived, the distinctive clothing that the Church has handed down to her ministers comes freighted with theological significance.
In this he is absolutely right—but his defence of current practice ignores the historical discontinuity in practice with previous centuries, and fails to ask whether the symbolism currently communicated is the right symbolism. The more power we recognise in vesture, the more important it is that we wear the right things for the right reasons. Mitres do not just sit uncomfortably on the heads of our bishops; they sit awkwardly with the Church of England’s reformed catholic understanding of ministry, rooted as it is in the patterns of the New rather than the Old Testament. The symbolism of the high priest belongs either to Jesus alone, or to the whole people of God; we no longer have the sacerdotal priestly caste that existed in the Old Testament.
There is one final and serious objection to the wearing of mitres. I noted how important these things can be in our visual media age—and we need to reflect on what such clear visual signals communicate. To most, and I would suggest especially the young, the sight of bishops in mitres puts them in another world. It is world of the past, a world of nostalgia, a world of deference—and mostly a world which is quite disconnected from present experience and values. It confirms for many the impression of a church irrelevant to modern questions, contained in its own bubble of self reference. (It might be worth also noting that the Christian church in this country is not in decline overall; whilst the historic denominations are declining, the ‘new’ churches are growing, and attracting young people—and their leaders mostly appear to feel no need to wear distinctive clothing.)
And in its hierarchical understanding of authority, it is a culture of which contemporary society is becoming less and less tolerant, possibly for good reason. In her damning report on the handling of the evidence relating to Peter Ball’s abuse of children, Dame Moira Gibb highlights the problems in the culture of the Church:
We were struck during this review by a manifest culture of deference both to authority figures in the Church, particularly bishops, and to individuals with distinctive religious reputations—or both. This deference had two negative consequences. Firstly, it discouraged people from “speaking truth to power.” Then, on the few occasions where people did speak out and were rebuffed by a bishop—the summit of the hierarchy—there was nowhere else to go.
Nothing symbolises the ‘culture of deference’ like the wearing of mitres. It is time for them to go.
I still believe that any discussion and debate about vestments (including mitres) is pretty pointless and, as some have said, like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s just about tradition – and we are well aware that there are several different strands of tradition in the C of E. Convocation robes are just as ‘loaded’ as mitres. Every bit as loaded.
If people didn’t like traditional dress the coronation would not have been so popular.
If people didn’t like traditional dress the coronation would not have been so popular.
But isn’t the point made in the article that mitres at coordinations isn’t traditional? And in fact Charles didn’t wear traditional dress at the coronation, eschewing the silk stockings.
There was the U-turn made on allowing the Lords to wear their ermine but in general I don’t think you can use the recent coronation as any kind of defence of tradition.
Andrew – you make a very good point about the coronation. I picture in my mind the Archbishop of Canterbury coming in wearing jeans and a T-shirt with some sort of logo ‘We love you Charlie’ and turning the coronation into the church scene from the Blues Brothers movie.
Jock, I have had great difficulty in taking Bishops’ seriously ever since watching the Monty Python sketch ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnE-5lD7w8
Get the Bishops into normal smart clothes – so they can more easily identify with the common people. Note Matthew 20:25-27.
In the New Testament ‘bishops’ are the same as ‘elders’ – of which each Christian community would normally have had several.
Therefore, the Greek ‘episkopous’ (‘bishops’ or ‘overseers’) = the Greek ‘presbuterous’ (‘elders’). Compare, Acts 20:17 with Acts 20:28; and Titus 1:5 with Titus 1::7.
Consequently “proper clerical dress” would have been that exemplified by the apostles, and first century, congregational ‘elders’; i.e. normal, contemporary dress. like everyone else.
A Bishop and his mitre should never be divided, when in procession, or sitting down ?
God bless them.
The Church of England should have got rid of bishops when it had the chance.
As for proper clerical dress, the answer, obviously, is the Geneva gown.
Obviously, the Geneva gown. O, ‘S’ 🙂
‘To “S” –
‘The C of E should have got rid of ‘Bishops’ –
Yes, but does that also include the mitres ?
How much do these vestments cost? Do the Bishop’s have to pay for them themselves? They look pretty expensive to me.
Chris – dunno – perhaps they have something about it in the fashion pages of Vanity Fair magazine.
To Chris Bishop –
You can’t make a Bishops mitre out of a Sow’s ear.
The Bishop of Leicester Richard Rutt, knitted his own mitre. I saw it with my own eyes when he visited my father in his parishes. It was rather a fine article.
Perhaps he could have used it as a tea cosy as well?
To Chris Bishop :
I’ve heard it all now – a multi-tasking mitre !
Dear Philippa;
I find that home- knitted, mitre story, mighty difficult to believe.
Were you just having a larf ? 🙂 🙂
Based on Psalm 78:1-8, yesterday, July 2, part of a commentary is this:
“Throughout history many have honoured God with external behaviour, but failed to have converted hearts (Isaiah 29:13; Jeremiah 4:4).
Are you just going through the motions of religion, or have you been born again (John 3:1-16)?”
My Rock My Refuge, by the Kellers
Geoff –
Sacerdotalism should have no place in the Christian New Covenant system.
I see that there is quite a lot in this article about deference, and how that is to be eschwed. Perhaps hangers-on within the Archbishops’s Council might like to reflect on their part in bolstering the battered authority of our mitre-wearing leaders.
With great respect, Dexter;
What about ‘bolstering the battered authority’ of the New Testament :
” And call no man on earth ‘Father’, for you have one Father, and He is in heaven.”
(Matthew 23:9).
1 Corinthians 4:15
Dexter –
But Jesus in Matthew 23:9 is talking about formal, Ecclesiastical titles -by which you, presumably, render null and void His words.
In the passage you referred to Paul is saying that he is the ‘father’ of the Christians because he was the one who brought them to Christ. That is very different from calling someone ‘father’ because of the office he holds. Also, I’m not sure that the Corinthians would have addressed Paul as ‘father’.
Amen, David – Or, addressed Paul as ‘father’ with a capital ‘F’ (as of a title). A lot of problems accrue by not abiding by New Testament beliefs and practice.
I don’t really understand your comment. The AC do not ‘bolster’ the authority of the bishops; we try and work with them, but that is not always easy.
The goals of the AC and the goals of either the House of Bishops or the individual dioceses are not well aligned, and that is the root of a lot of our strategic problems.
Then let me spell it out for you. You, and other members of the AC have just sacked the ISB – the people trusted by surivors of abuse. In doing so, you have shown deference to those in authority who were not keen on the independent scrutiny that members of that board sought to bring, and ignored the very real concerns of survivors. You pesonally chose to make a bizarre response to the deputy lead bishop for safeguarding when she criticised that decision rather than listen to the concerns being raised.
All of that follows your dismissal of those asking for an independent enquiry into the allegations at Soul Survivor. When the complainants stated that they did not trust the C of E to investigate properly, you effectively told them to trust the system – what is that if it’s not an appeal to deference?
You can fuss about mitres and the authority they might represent all you like, but your recent actions have shown that when it really matters you will bolster the status quo and dismiss the vulnerable who have cause to raise concerns.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but from where I’m standing you are part of the problem of the lack of accountability. On the AC you have a responsibility to, and you don’t appear to be exercising it.
Thanks for clarifying your meaning—but I am afraid you are wholly inaccurate in your comments.
The AC made a commitment 2.5 years ago to developed fully independent safeguarding. The ‘ISB’ that was set up was only ever interim, and stage 1, and part of its task was to lead us to a fully legally independent entity.
A number of us in AC realised that the breakdown in relationships meant that ISB 1 was never going to deliver this; I and others have been pressing for a reset for six months or more.
The fact that this group was only interim was communicated very clearly, but protesters appear to have forgotten that. They also appear to have forgotten that the commitment to full independence has been in writing for some time.
It is members of the AC, and not the bishops, who have been pressing for change, and we have been doing so for the cause of independence, not against it.
I know that’s the party line. However, given that the clarity and professionalism of the statements of the sacked ISB members contrast so starkly with the bluster and the incoherence of those members of the AC who have dared to put their heads above the parapet, I know who I trust here. I don’t think you and others on the AC understand how badly you have undermined trust in the C of E by your recent actions.
I absolutely agree with Fr Dexter here and he makes very important points.
There are many helpful documents and comments at the Thinking Anglicans website, not least those of Froghole.
This transcript also gives an important perspective
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/The-World-at-One-260623-transcript.pdf
Andrew – thanks for the transcript. As I’ve indicated below, I’m not associated with any church right now; everything is theoretical. But I don’t think I’m exactly thick – and I feel that if you want to get anywhere, then the discussion should be framed in terms that I understand.
Sexual abuse of children was not mentioned explicitly in the World at One interview, but they talk about ‘victims’ and ‘survivors’. Victims and survivors of what? Victims and survivors of sexual abuse of children? Or victims and survivors of being badgered in an excruciatingly dull interminable internet exchange about Salvation History?
Sarah Montague asks ‘if a victim came to you, would you say you can trust the church to sort it out?’ Below I asked the naive question which hasn’t been answered – if it is the victim of a crime, then why can’t the victim of a crime go to the police? And why can’t the police sort it out? If some organisation within the church is needed, doesn’t this mean that the police force is unsatisfactory and not doing its job properly?
So – as I see it – ‘safeguarding’ is still something ill-defined (is it connected with activities that are a crime in the eyes of the law? does it go further than this?) and I’m now very intrigued that there seems to be a split over liberal / conservative lines, whereby those of a more liberal disposition are outraged that two members of the ISB were sacked, while those of a more ‘conservative’ disposition seem to think it was the right thing to do.
Andrew – p.s. – nothing wrong with Salvation History as a topic for discussion – it’s the endless exchange with ‘S’ that has the soporific effect.
it’s the endless exchange
If you feel like you can get actual answers rather than equivocations and evasions out of Andrew Godsall in fewer tries than it takes me then by all means, be my guest.
Comment deleted. I am not going to tolerate abusive language, or the presumption that certain views are ‘obvious’ and those who disagree are just ignorant.
Ian.
Jock: I would be delighted to have a discussion with you. Please do ask Ian for my e mail address so that we don’t clog up the system here with off topic conversation.
The matter of Salvation History – Heilsgeschicte- is not something of my own invention but I will happily try to elucidate in discussion with you.
“I’m now very intrigued that there seems to be a split over liberal / conservative lines, whereby those of a more liberal disposition are outraged that two members of the ISB were sacked, while those of a more ‘conservative’ disposition seem to think it was the right thing to do.”
Jock I don’t think there is any split in that way. There are not many comments about the matter here and whilst it might appear that the split is the way you describe, I don’t think Fr Dexter would like to be referred to as liberal.
It will be fascinating to see how this goes in question time at General Synod.
There was no abusive language.
Have to agree. I was called a ‘bully’ but that is simply inaccurate, as readers can see for themselves, not ‘abusive’.
Please do ask Ian for my e mail address so that we don’t clog up the system here with off topic conversation.
If you do have this conversation by private e-mail, please be sure to first permission get to publish it somewhere public once it is concluded, for transparency.
Comment deleted again. I am not allowing name-calling. Last chance.
Ian
Well S at least we agree there was no abusive language or name calling.
For the avoidance of doubt: Jock, if you would care to have a more detailed conversation by e mail I would be entirely happy for that to be an ‘open’ correspondence. That would be true with anyone.
Andrew – I’m happy to make contact with you off-line – to discuss matters of interest which are interesting and off-topic for the threads. Let us do this in a few weeks. Right now, I’m going on holiday – and I try to make holidays internet-free as far as possible.
Note to Ian – I started reading and contributing here shortly before the war in Ukraine started last year – and since then I’ve noted that you have never taken a holiday – the articles have kept coming, several a week every week. It is now day 497 of the war. I think that everybody needs a holiday from time to time for their general health – and this includes you – so I hope you’re considering this.
Fr Dexter,
Do you think the CofE has too many Bishops?
Chris – thanks for the Monte Python!
Perhaps your question could be re-phrased. Perhaps there aren’t enough bishops. If they made everybody a bishop then everybody could wear a nice pointy hat to go to church on Sunday.
I’m curious that jazz musicians don’t seem to have appropriated the title ‘Bishop’. I mean, you get Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Sir Charles Thompson (who got his ‘knighthood’ from Charlie Parker in the early 1940’s). Why not bishop?
I think the C of E has too many bishops and a lack of clarity as to what episcopal ministry is.
However, that wasn’t the point of my comment.
You stated that the Bishop’s authority is ‘ battered’ . Do you think their dress has something to do with this perception or is it their actions -or both?
I’m referring very particularly to the actions of the Archbishops’ Council in relation to safeguarding, actions which the author of this piece has supported. Bolstering the authority of the archbishops whilst ignoring the needs of victims seems the model of deferring to authority, and no amount of whining about mitres changes that.
Fr Dexter Bracey – I’ve heard the term ‘safeguarding’, but I don’t really know what it means. I don’t expect you to write a l-o-n-g post, but if you could link to something which defines what the problem is (i.e. if someone is a victim – what are they a victim of) what has been happening within the C. of E. (and other religious organisations) and what the leadership should be doing about it.
I’m not a church man (in the sense that I don’t go to church – and I’m quite keen to keep my 7 year old out of harms way). It doesn’t surprise me that bad things are going on – I’d like something precise that describes the problem.
One think that has struck me about Bishops is that it seems very difficult to remove them or make them accountable. Bishop Dakin was a case in point. Unlike vicars and lower clerics, there seems to be no formal process for doing so unless you bump them off like they used to do in medieval times. Would they have more credibility if they had more accountability and to whom or what? How would you make a Bishop accountable to his or her’s flock?
( l am not suggesting bringing back hit men you understand)
Jock this simple link will take you to what you need to know.
https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding
Worth noting that bullying – badgering- harassing others on social media sites (of which this is one) can be considered a safeguarding issue.
Worth noting that bullying – badgering- harassing others on social media sites (of which this is one) can be considered a safeguarding issue.
How bizarre. Is there any explanation of how robust debate on an inter-net sure between adults who have have met and never will meet could lead to a child being sexual abused?
Clearly the grooming if children over the inter-net is a huge issue. But debate between adults? I don’t get it.
Andrew – OK – thanks. My reaction to this page is ‘is the C. of E. sure it knows what it is doing?’ On the page you linked to, I saw sexual abuse of children listed. This is horrible and has to be dealt with severely, but isn’t that the job of the police? In fact, since (and possibly as a result of) Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and other cases, haven’t the police developed very good skills and competence to deal with this? So if there is a prima facie case, why isn’t it a police matter?
But at the same time, the ‘safeguarding’ page you linked to seems to diminish the seriousness of sexual abuse of children, because they link it with other things all under the same ‘safeguarding’ umbrella, things which are clearly not so clear-cut. For example. Putting ‘S’ ‘badgering’ you on Ian Paul’s blog on the same level as sexual abuse of children by categorising them both as ‘safeguarding’ trivialises the issue of sexual abuse.
With the internet, what worries me most of all is that it’s difficult to see how any legislation (I’m not being C. of E. specific here – I’m thinking of the law-of-the-land in general) won’t be abused to make it illegal to put good information that the authorities don’t like up there. I’m sure they’d love to ban Craig Murray from writing – his detailed day by day accounts of the Assange hearing were very informative and useful for me – and it was impossible to find this information in the main stream media.
So I can summarise my concerns about the page you linked to with three points:
1) ‘safeguarding’ is too broad in its definition, encompassing issues that are clear-cut, but also going beyond this and covering issues that are not clear-cut, which may have the unfortunate consequence of trivialising the clear-cut issues.
2) any moves to clamp down on robust internet discussion which becomes bad tempered and abusive could easily be abused to also clamp down on posting good information which the authorities would like to be concealed.
3) I think we’re actually dealing with police matters here – and not C. of E. matters. With sexual abuse issues, these should be referred straight to the police who are competent to deal with them and not dealt with ‘in-house’. In fact, anything which is a real ‘safeguarding’ issue really ought to be referred directly to the police (rather than being dealt with in-house).
I think we’re actually dealing with police matters here – and not C. of E. matters.
This is true but the issue is that the police can only deal with things they know about and sadly in the past lots of child sexual abuse has been successfully hidden from the police. So we’re really talking about the stage before the police get involved here, and in that case anything which makes it more likely that the police do get involved is good.
But you are also correct that it’s important not to let ‘mission creep’ expand this strategy for making sure sexual abuse of children is spotted and the police involved, doesn’t get diluted by mixing it with stuff that isn’t serious or criminal at all.
S – OK – but just as long as it’s the police who do the policing – and you don’t get a situation where people are designated ‘safeguarding risk’ or even suspended from their job before the police have investigated and *the police* have decided that there is at least a prima facie case (i.e. something much stronger than an inflammatory person in a blog discussion shouting right left and centre ‘oh you are a safeguarding risk’ along with other expressions from the lies/slander/character assassination style of engagement – eg ‘misogynist, homophobe, racist, anti-Semite’ etc … and other nasties that such trolls come up with).
As soon as you have a pre-police stage, it is very important to ensure that it is not abused – it is easy to see how an Orwellian situation can develop.
As I pointed out, with sexual abuse of children, the police have actually become much smarter and much more sensitive and professional in recent years – they learned a lot from their investigations into Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris.
Jock: I wasn’t aware that anyone was saying that one kind of abuse is equivalent to another or can be compared. Each has to be taken on its own merit.
You wanted something short. But you would find it is useful to look at the policy document here.
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/ParishSafeGuardingHandBookAugust2019Web.pdf
but just as long as it’s the police who do the policing
Well you say that, but in lots of areas the police have simply given up enforcing the law. For example in between half to two thirds of neighbourhoods across England and Wales, no thefts at all were solved in the last three years.
So given that police cannot be relied upon nowadays, what is to be done?
Well, vehicular crime is down massively; not because of the police but because technology has simply made cars harder to steal.
So safeguarding procedures are, as far as I can see, the child sexual abuse equivalent of immobilisers. Crimes occur when the criminal has the motive, the means, and the opportunity. You can’t do anything about motive: criminals always have motive, it’s what makes them criminals. And child abusers always have means too. But safeguarding procedures can try to deny them opportunity by ensuring that, for example, no one is ever alone with a child.
Well, that’s the theory. Of course we all know that really ‘safeguarding’ isn’t about protecting children, it’s about protecting the organisation from being sued — if they can say ‘we followed all the procedures’ then they can’t be held liable.
I wasn’t aware that anyone was saying that one kind of abuse is equivalent to another or can be compared.
When you say two things are in the same category (such as the category ‘safeguarding risk’) then you are, by definition, comparing them.
Andrew – OK – thanks for this – I’ve downloaded it and superficially glanced through it.
I’d say that S is correct to point out that there are two different classes of problem here – which should be kept separate. On the one hand, there is criminal activity. S doesn’t seem to trust the police – hence he thinks the C. of E. has to take on the job of the police. It’s not that I have more confidence in the police – I simply think that the police should be reformed in a such a way that we can have confidence in the police to do their job when it comes to the despicable criminality of sex abuse of children.
There is another entirely different category of problem – basically rooting out the sort of behaviour that simply shouldn’t be seen by particularly of people in a pastoral role, but more generally from people who are pretending to be Christians. The C. of E. really does have to root out that sort of thing – but it’s definitely not in the same category (and should be treated separately in a separate document as a separate problem).
Jock: I suspect that you and S have never undertaken any detailed safeguarding training? If you had, you would not be making the kind of points you are making here.
If I am wrong and you have, for example, completed a 3 day basic training course as run by the CofE, then I apologise.
Andrew – you’re absolutely correct – I’ve never done any basic safeguarding training. Furthermore, although you could try to explain it to me, it would still be on a ‘theoretical’ level – I don’t meet so many people and definitely not people who are ‘pastoral cases’. But if you have something that could explain the issues then I’d find it interesting.
thinks the C. of E. has to take on the job of the police.
No, that’s not it. The job of the police is to investigate crime and catch criminals, the hand them over to the courts. I do not think that the Church of England or any other organisation should take on that job.
It is not the job of the police to make sure that I lock my doors when I leave the house, or that I keep my wits about me when walking along a street at night, in order to avoid being a victim of crime. This is the category safeguarding procedures should fall into: not the investigation of crimes but taking precautions so that criminals do not have the opportunity to commit crimes in the first place.
Like locking our doors protects our belongings by denying thieves the opportunity to steal them, safeguarding procedures protect our children by denying pædophiles the opportunity to abuse them.
And protecting our children from abuse is not the police’s job, it’s ours, just like protecting our belongings is our job, not the police’s. The police’s job is to investigate in the cases when we fail in our job to protect.
As I say though that’s all theoretical. In reality the whole safeguarding industry is just arse-covering to avoid being sued.
Jock – (hope this lands in the right place) I think you are right to distinguish safeguarding in the way you do. I am the safeguarding officer for my church and have to attend mandatory training, including refresher courses run by the Baptist Union over several days. To accuse someone of being a ‘safeguarding risk’ is an extremely serious accusation and can be misused. It can also be weaponised by individuals who have vexatious motives. This was covered at the training course that l attended and the collection and verification of facts and taking statements with clear transparency, record keeping and impartiality, was stressed as being of fundamental importance -particularly if there are potential criminal implications involved. We were also taught that the church is about the only organisation that has a responsibility to the abuser as well as the abused. We had to work through various scenarios to ensure we took the right actions.
In the recent case of Mike Pivilachi then it would seem to me that many people have already made up their mind about the accusations against him and have judged him already. Either way, if in the event he is found not guilty, the tragedy for him is that his ministry is now almost certainly finished.
Mud unfortunately sticks.
‘I think the C of E has too many bishops and a lack of clarity as to what episcopal ministry is.’
I AGREE ON BOTH!!
Too many Bishops! Totally agree. Why do we need 101 when are church numbers have gone down since there were 48? The cuts need to be made at the top and in Diocesan offices, not at grass roots level. 23 years ago when I was first licensed my Diocesan office had 5 people working there, mainly managing finance!
Why do we need 101 when are church numbers have gone down since there were 48?
Eventually, presumably, the Mitre Problem well resolve itself when everyone in the Church of England is a bishop.
Okay ‘S’… that’s a good one
I agree that we have too many bishops, which is in turn an outcome of having far too many dioceses. My former employer used to employ over 130,000 people, paying them all centrally, using central teams for issues like finance, work on buildings etc. rather than duplicating the same functions 42 times. If only the C of E would do the same, we could afford more folk on the front-lines that are so often mentioned by bishops, namely parish clergy.
Perhaps we should also reduce the number of Archbishops by 50% as nobody outside the C of E (and most inside it) don’t understand what the role entails or its similarities and differences with that of the ABC?
If we were to cut the number of dioceses, we would also reduce the number of diocesan roles, like climate change advisers, race advisers (who bizarrely never ever focus on the antisemitism that still exists in parts of the Church)
Do you also agree that the Church of England has too many Archbishops?
So which is it? Mitres look so utterly silly no one will take Christian leadership or faith seriously in our media-image age. Mitres encourage too much respect and unhealthy deference to authority and this has led to bishops abusing people. Meanwhile the non-mitred evangelical world awaits the latest report on abusive leadership behaviour by – er – men in suits. And in the all highly informal evangelical charismatic world another such investigation has just started.
Indeed. Deference and a failure to challenge those in authority is not connected to what people in authority wear. I’d have more sympathy for the author of this piece if he actually challenged authority rather than have petty arguments over what people wear in church.
Thank you David and Fr Dexter. These are exactly the responses that need making to this article. Any argument about what people wear when presiding or officiating is indeed petty beyond words.
‘I’d have more sympathy for the author of this piece if he actually challenged authority’
If you don’t think I am in the habit of doing that, perhaps you have not read much of the blog!
‘Not being challenging enough’ is that last think people say about me!!
Ian, it is precisely because you are so often willing to challenge authority that I am disappointed that you did not say that you disagreed with the decision to sack all the independent members of the ISB.
The Archbishops’ Council is a weird organisation in that, with a membership of 19, it includes the 2 archbishops and 7 others that they appoint, meaning that they only need 1 out of the remaining 10 members to agree with them to get anything through the council. That is a very strange form of democracy.
If it is argued that the Church is not a democracy, I would agree with you, but then why have an Archbishops’ Council at all?
I challenged the power of the two ISB members who appeared determined to undermine the AC at every turn, and whose supporters have waged a ferocious social media campaign against me and others.
And I challenged the Archbishops, who have been slow and resistant in grasping the nettle to enable independent safeguarding to be put into effect.
Ian Paul’s comment in response makes a very serious claim which is a direct attack on the integrity and professionalism of the two ISB members. I hope that he will either support that claim with compelling evidence, or withdraw and apologise.
My comments are entirely in line with what was shared in Synod yesterday, and I look forward to the review which will set out all the facts.
David, a good question, to which the answer is ‘both’.
To those on the outside, they look ridiculous.
To many of the bishops themselves, they seem (according to their own testimony, to a number I have spoken to, or have just commented online) a symbol of authority, even spiritual power. (if they were not that, why is there such fierce, fierce resistance to the idea that they might be dispensed with?)
Thus to those on the inside, especially lowly clergy such as ordinands and the newly ordained, they represent the authority which demands deference, so that the use of power cannot be questioned.
And of course, the outsiders view and the insiders view drift ever further apart. It seems to be to be the worst of both worlds.
Of course, that wasn’t David’s point or question. See Fr Dexter’s comment.
There has been a rather alarming deference and a failure to challenge those in authority in a high profile charismatic evangelical setting where t shirts and jeans are the norm.
There has been a rather alarming deference and a failure to challenge those in authority in a high profile charismatic evangelical setting where t shirts and jeans are the norm.
‘And in America, they are lynching Negroes!’
Authority within and outwith the church are different aspects of what being a Christian is.
Abuse and misuse of authority isn’t dependant excusively on clothing: church context plays a part.
It is a question of the sin within, a matter of the heart that is an idol factory, that is deceitful above all things.
I strongly dislike mitres because they invariably look rather silly (although the Bishop of Aston carried one off very well at a recent ordination in Birmingham Cathedral!), but there is something about distinctive dress that is more in tune with current society than many of us realise.
Having taken several weddings recently, it is striking that people attending, dressed in their finery, display gradations of dress based on their function at the event: bride, bridesmaids, groom, best man, bride’s dad, groomsmen, minister, guests (although the guy in t-shirt and shorts clearly had misread the invitation). This is generally in stark contrast to attire at the wedding rehearsal the day before.
I served as a Show Chaplain at the Royal Norfolk Show last week, and found that a clerical collar (and the snazzy blue hi-viz waistcoat) meant that I had some wonderful conversations that I believe would have not happened if I’d been in civvies. Notably, all Show Stewards (mostly from the agricultural community) wear special attire to denote their function – lounge suits and a bowler hat – whereas most would wear a flat cap and wellies in daily life. People outside the church (and many inside) don’t get the theological nuances of clerical dress, however the wearing of special clothing for special events or special function remains important to many people.
Most of us in the Boomer generation have spent a lot of energy rebelling against traditional norms of dress, however I observe that many in younger generations embrace the idea of quite traditional garb for special occasions with more enthusiasm than I ever have. I do wonder if the rejection of clerical dress by many ministers is actually an extension of this cultural phenomenon rather than anything particularly theological or ecclesiological. (I note that a significant minority of young clergy have gone back to the full collar with suit and waistcoat.) Yes, ditch the mitre (for looking silly and being theologically dodgy), but let’s be careful not to miss where 2020s culture is at, while we unconsciously continue to fight the dress battles of a couple of generations ago.
David, you make some good points here. A Baptist minister l know regularly wears a dog collar (Baptists don’t go in for mitres) and tells me it affords him a respect and access to people to talk about his faith that he would otherwise not have.
Chris – a few months ago, I wrote about my Salvation Army friend who was able to get Russian language bibles on board a Russian spy ship that had run into difficulties and was forced to dock at a harbour (location omitted). One crucial component of this was the Salvation Army uniform. He explained to me his technique – when he arrived at the foot of the gangplank, he shook hands with an official, with a big smile saying ‘Welcome to our city!’ and walking straight past him (not giving him the chance to say no) – he did the same with the official at the top of the gang plank. Fortunately (or rather by the grace of God) the captain was a Christian who was very happy to receive the bibles. After some small talk, the captain apologised that the next bit might be a little rough -then he started shouting, ‘What do you mean, Salvation Army?? I thought you were an official from the port authorities!!’ and he had to get off the ship fast, having successfully landed a stash of Russian language bibles on the spy ship.
So – umm – you’re absolutely right – appropriate formal dress does get you through some doors and in some cases facilitates evangelism.
Chris Bishop –
The clerical collar was invented in 1865 by Donald Mcleod, who was a Minister in the Church of Scotland. The fashion caught on, and other Anglican clergy also began turning their collars around backwards.
This article deserves to be widely read – it points to much that is wrong with the C of E.
Colin Buchanan: ‘It sits with (a) Roman theories of authority, (b) pomp, (c) self-inflation, and (d) the second generation factor.’ Sums the issue up well. There is more of Rome – pagan Rome as well as Roman Catholicism – in the Anglican Church than is commonly recognised, as witness the unscriptural formulations of the Nicene Creed, and the priestly administration of wine and wafer at the Altar. Buchanan was one of the leading clerics responsible for updating the liturgy in the 1970s, I recall. I remember having a long conversation with him on the train, in 1980 or 1981, I think.
The reintroduction of mitres in the 19th century must have been part of the Ritualist movement that took off in the 1860s. Reading Jeremy Thomas’s excellent The Nation’s Gospel I was surprised to learn that surpliced choirs (previously limited to cathedrals), vestments, incense and candles on the altar all came in at this time. I love the music that goes with surplice choirs but have to admit that the spirituality that the Ritualist movement embodied was ultimately deadly. One way that the Devil sought to undermine the Revival that began in the 1850s.
Steven –
Thank goodness, that the Apostles (presumably) didn’t wear Mitres !
No, they had to get by with tongues of fire instead.
The Church of England managed quite well with unmitred bishops for most of its existence. Reintoducing mitres in the early 20th Century was a badly-timed move. If it was intended to shore up declining episcopal authority then it clearly failed since mitres just make bishops appear as comical figures. Silly hats do not enhance dignity! They should be discarded.
To John Darch :
Get the Bishops into smart modern suits, so they can more easily identify with common humanity (cf. Matthew 20:25-27).
That’s lawyers, stockbrokers and MPs? Or at least the male ones!
I was taught not to wear clothing in court that would draw attention and be a distraction, away from what is being said. (That would apply to male and female advocates.)
I was taught not to wear clothing in court that would draw attention and be a distraction, away from what is being said.
This is what’s great about the Geneva gown: it’s plain, it’s standardised, it ensures that the attention is on the message and not the one saying it.
Worship leaders wear baseball caps back to front to distinguish them. How about if bishops wore a baseball cap sideways? That would surely look cool and 21st century? And whether it stuck out to left or right could signify whose side they were on.
🙂 🙂 🙂
‘The Church of England managed quite well with unmitred bishops for most of its existence. Reintoducing mitres in the early 20th Century was a badly-timed move.’
Exactly so. Well said John.
Amen !
No Bishop of the diocese of Barchester (including Bishop Proudie) has ever been known to wear mitres.
No Bishop of the diocese of Barchester (including Bishop Proudie) has ever been known to wear mitres.
That’s a very low reading on the mitremeter
Thanks, “S”. I guess I may need to recalibrate my mitremeter, then ! 🙂
Compromise solution: bishops are allowed to wear mitres but when they are wearing them they can only walk diagonally.
“S” – O, “S”… 🙂 🙂
That would represent the epitome of angle(ism). Even if it would be a skit of a Christian calling: Carpenter seeks Joiners.
And these builders of the house of God? need the assistance of the guild of painters and decorators, in their splattered overalls, who know that the key ingrained preparation is to, “repaint and thin no more.”
I am not one who is into vestments, but there is something special for occasions when the regalia of the Bishop is valuable in showing the importance if the occasion. I have a photograph on my sideboard which shows the Bishop of Leicester in full regalia at a confirmation service of 20 people, including my grandson. My grandson is wearing his first suit and the Bishop is showing his Office in the church together with his Staff. A lovely sunny day in the Leicestershire countryside.
In the other hand Bishop Saju, Suffragen, came to our church the Sunday before last and just wore red robes, which made him stand out as he strode up and down the aisle explaining the story of the Prodigal Son in true African style. He’s welcome back any time to preach the Gospel from the heart in that way!
To Tricia :
There are plenty of “Brethren” Churches who preach the Gospel from the heart, but they but they don’t have “Bishops”, just ‘elders’ – who are in contemporary dress, and go by the “title” of “Brother”.
Yes I agree. But the issue is preaching the Gospel and Bishops regalia do not prevent that as it is a matter of having a heart for Jesus. The Orthodox Church uses rich clothing and symbolism to acknowledge the seasons of the churches year and the C of E is a spin off from the Catholic Church.
I am not really a fan of the trendy vicar who seems to be getting scruffier by the day. Recently preaching at a nearby church was an American curate wearing a woolly hat and joggers. Does not have any gravitas for the word of God.
I am not really a fan of the trendy vicar who seems to be getting scruffier by the day. Recently preaching at a nearby church was an American curate wearing a woolly hat and joggers. Does not have any gravitas for the word of God.
Nothing smarter and with more gravitas than a Geneva gown.
Points taken, Tricia. You’re a “good ‘un”.
It’s not their mitres that the Church of England’s bishops need to ditch. It’s their liberal theology. Let the world do what it likes but, in seeking to import gay wedding ceremonies from it into the church in the face of what the scriptures say, they are committing treason against the Lord Jesus Christ – even as they take fat salaries from the faithful to do so.
Liberal theologians typically use the buzzwords in the Creeds in different ways from the laity. Amongst themselves they are open enough what they do (and don’t) believe, but in mixed company they deceive. This is a form of gnosticism, and the words of Peter (2nd letter ch.2:1-3) apply equally well to them:
There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Amongst themselves they are open enough what they do (and don’t) believe, but in mixed company they deceive.
Ah yes. The way they snigger behind their hands.
‘Tell me, do you believe in God?’ asks the parishioner. ‘Of course I do,’ says the member of the clergy, inwardly smirking and thinking ‘but what I mean by “God” is much more sophisticated than the bearded man in the sky that you are thinking of, you simple-minded rube; and I also have a much more nuanced understand of what it means to “believe”. And frankly we’re not that close on “in”, either.’
Clinton clergy, I call them (I don’t. But I should).
It’s like that book that was written at the height of Dawkins-mania called something like ‘the case for God’ only it turned out it wasn’t actually a case for God actually existing but about how God was actually a construct made up by humans to give meaning to their lives and that’s somehow Good, Actually.
No, the Church of England is the established Church and only it right it blesses homosexual couples married in English civil law. It is Christianity not Paulianity too and Christ never opposed committed homosexual unions
T1 – should the bishop perhaps wear a ‘Pride Mitre’ (i.e. a mitre with a colourful rainbow on it) when blessing a homosexual couple?
You really do talk nonsense. Roman and Greek culture in the time Christ walked on earth was very sexualised, but no Greek or Roman would suggest that you marry another man – they had young men as their play things. They married women to beget children and also a sex life. You only need to visit the ruins of Pompeii, see the wall paintings and visit the brothel to see this.
Judaism and Christianity were different from the culture around them. Christianity from the very beginning specified that marriage was between one man and one woman and that adultery was a serious breaking of the covenant relationship.
Christianity from the very beginning specified that marriage was between one man and one woman and that adultery was a serious breaking of the covenant relationship.
T1 isn’t interested in Christianity. T1 is only interested in the Church of England because it’s the established church; if T1 lived in Iran T1 would be a Muslim, in Rome T1 would be sacrifice to the emperor; in the USSR comrade T1 would have been devoted to the Party and in Japan T1’s desire for national ceremony would have found perhaps its truest expression in State Shinto.
Your probably right – he certainly has a fixation.
Your heart’s in the right place Tricia, but have you read Juvenal on a gay wedding in ancient Rome? (Evangelicals might find it amusing, by the way.)
Anton, I’m reading through the Latin classics.
Can you give me the Juvenal reference?
Thanks.
See Satire 2 from 117:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/juv-sat2eng.asp
If anything that also suggests blessings of homosexual couples in monogamous unions are much closer to Christianity and Christ’s message than having lots of sexual partners. Whether they are young men or women as well as your spouse as the ancient greeks and romans did
” It is Christianity not Paulianity”
That’s akin to baling out your sunken boat with a broken polo mint.
A broken polo mint !
😉 🙂 🙂
Anton –
Never mind the Anglican creeds of the fourth to the eleventh centuries (with the Latin version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) , let’s get back, as Professor Larry Hurtado advocated, to First century Christian beliefs.
Quite so, Pellegrino. As described in the New Testament.
Yes, indeedy ! ;
And, make sure we’ve not got the wrong spectacles on.
I think none of us would recognise the kind of liturgy and ceremony and symbolism that went on in the very early Church. And many would have a problem with their emerging understanding that the bread and wine became the body and blood of their Lord.
‘And many would have a problem with their emerging understanding that the bread and wine became the body and blood of their Lord.’ That’s because it doesn’t, and the NT doesn’t suggest this.
The Didache makes reference to the real presence as do early Fathers. 1 Corinthians ….John 6…..
Interpretations differ. And the culture of the ANE was very different to ours.
Interpretations differ. And the culture of the ANE was very different to ours.
Interpretations do differ and so do cultures but what has that do do with it? Either the bread and wine become the body and blood or they do not; it’s a question of objective fact which is either true or false, not a cultural matter or a subject for interpretation .
The objective fact is that early Christians held to the real presence.
The objective fact is that early Christians held to the real presence.
And it’s also an objective fact that they were incorrect.
(And that’s a rather more important objective fact, just like that objective fact that phlogiston doesn’t exist is rather more important than the objective fact that people once held to phlogiston.)
And that is a matter of opinion.
As the use of mitres is also a matter of opinion.
And that is a matter of opinion.
The relative importance is a matter of opinion. But the fact that it’s an objective fact that they were wrong is not a matter of opinion. It’s an objective fact.
Crossed posts caused confusion. It is a matter of opinion whether the early Christians were right to hold the real presence. The Orthodox opinion is that they were correct.
It is a matter of opinion whether the early Christians were right to hold the real presence.
It’s not; it’s a question of fact. It’s exactly the same sort of question as whether Aristotle was right to hold to geocentrism.
Either the bread and wine become the body and blood or they don’t. It’s a question of fact, not of opinion.
Where does Jesus say that the bread and wine are NOT His Body and Blood.
I believe a supernatural event takes place when the sacraments are blessed and received in faith.
I believe the elements are transformed in a supernatural way, and that they become real presence. I think the offering is as personal as that.
I don’t think it’s simply a matter of consuming some bread and wine as an act of memorial, like you might drink a toast to absent friends.
Why do people find it hard to believe that a supernatural God can do supernatural things?
There is wonder in the partaking of the Sacrament. There is intimacy. There is Presence. That just seems obvious to me, and I think it did to early believers.
1 Corinthians 11:29
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
I believe the elements are transformed in a supernatural way, and that they become real presence.
Right. And that’s a claim about an objective fact, and it is incorrect. The elements are not transformed in a supernatural way and they do not become the body and blood of Jesus.
It’s not a matter of opinion; either this supernatural transformation really happens or it does not. That’s an objective fact.
1 Corinthians 11:29
It’s still not a matter of opinion. Either the bread and wine become the body and blood or they do not. It’s a question of fact, not opinion.
You can argue about which fact is correct (and people have) but not about whether it is a question of fact.
So as a matter of fact, the New Testament in 1 Corinthians is incorrect, as it is, for example, in the matter of the genealogies. They differ from each other in Matthew and Luke so clearly both can not be correct.
So as a matter of fact,
So you agree that it’s a matter of fact whether the bread and wine really becomes the body and blood or whether it doesn’t, not a matter of opinion. Great. Apology accepted.
And you agree that the NT is incorrect. Great. Apology accepted.
And you agree that the NT is incorrect. Great. Apology accepted.
Obviously I agree to no such thing, because that wasn’t the topic of this discussion. The topic of this discussion was whether the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus is a matter of opinion or a matter of objective fact.
You have agreed that you think it is a matter of fact, and that you think the Bible is (as a matter of objective fact) wrong. I obviously disagree with you on the question of whether the Bible is wrong — I think that, as a matter of object fact, it’s right — but the important thing is that we both agree is is a matter of objective fact, and not a matter of opinion.
To return to the topic before you attempt to move the goalposts: it is as ridiculous to claim that it is ‘a matter of opinion’ whether the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus or not as it is to claim that it is ‘a matter of opinion’ whether the Earth orbits the Sun or the Sun orbits the Earth.
Both are statements about objective facts that are either true or false; there is no room for opinion.
But 1 Corinthians says it is the body of Christ. And you don’t agree. So obviously it is incorrect.
And the genealogies are very different. So obviously one is incorrect.
So the NT is incorrect in these places.
So thanks – apology accepted
Not so. You appear to be equating your (mistaken) interpretation of this text with the text itself. It is your interpretation which is incorrect.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
I mean this is pertinent to the discussion. It’s from the bible. And if it’s incorrect then the bible is wrong.
Again, very odd that you resort to proof-texting here. The question is, what is ‘body of Christ’ referring to?
Anthony Thiselton, in his NIGTC commentary, shows convincingly that this is a reference to the disciples gathered together. This is the *only* way Paul every uses ‘body of Christ’ language.
Again, very odd that you refuse to accept what is Orthodox here.
But 1 Corinthians says it is the body of Christ. And you don’t agree. So obviously it is incorrect.
I don’t agree that 1 Corinthians says it is the body of Christ. But the important thing is that you agree that I am incorrect — not just that I have a different opinion to you. Because it is a matter of fact, not opinion.
So the NT is incorrect in these places.
That’s what you think. I disagree. But the important thing is that you agree that our disagreement is over a matter of fact, not opinion. Either I am, as a matter of objective fact, correct, or you are, as a matter of objective fact, correct.
Those are the only opinions; we cannot both have different, but equally valid, opinions.
I’m glad you finally accept that, and, presumably, also accept that the same applies to the question of whether the bread and wine turns into the body and blood of Jesus: either it does or it doesn’t, people cannot have different but equally valid opinions on the subject.
‘S’ may feel that it is a matter of fact that the blood and wine do not, supernaturally, become the body and blood of Jesus when they are blessed.
God may know that as a matter of fact, they do.
We see through a glass, darkly. We cannot understand the full extent of the supernatural, in God’s dealings with us.
For us, it is primarily a matter of faith, not fact. Because we’re mortal, We’re human.
Some things can’t be proved as fact. Some things are not meant to be.
The trouble with rigid protestantism is that some people in it try to pin down everything, but God can’t be pinned down like that. The Spirit blows where she/he will. The Spirit may work in supernatural ways that we cannot possibly understand. And that’s good. That offers the invitation to open to faith and to trust.
Not trying to be rude or dismissive of other people’s paths, I think some people are missing out on mystical and supernatural traditions and experiences that have existed through the whole history of the Church: there seems to be a disconnect, for example, between some protestants and the amazing insights, writings, encounters, experiences of the Carmelites… or the profound author of ‘The Cloud of Unknowing’… or the practices of the ancient desert fathers, or the modern ones in their poustinia’s in Russia.
I think there is an almost modern reluctance to embrace the supernatural dimensions of Christian faith in ritual, ceremony, the Sacraments, and contemplation.
I suggest that can sometimes be a poverty.
‘‘S’ may feel that it is a matter of fact that the blood and wine do not, supernaturally, become the body and blood of Jesus when they are blessed.
God may know that as a matter of fact, they do.’
Except that God has revealed himself. And the conviction of the Reformers is that he spoke clearly on this question in Scripture.
You might disagree with this, but that puts you outside the Reformed tradition of which the C of E is a part.
Ian: “Not so. You appear to be equating your (mistaken) interpretation of this text with the text itself. It is your interpretation which is incorrect.”
Guys. The thing is: in faith it is not all about text.
Some may feel that it is a matter of fact that the blood and wine do not, supernaturally, become the body and blood of Jesus when they are blessed.
God may know that as a matter of fact, they do.
In which case those who think they do not are, as a matter of object fact, wrong, aren’t they? But the point is it is a matter of objective fact.
For us, it is primarily a matter of faith, not fact.
Faith is a matter of facts. The things we have faith in are either true, in which case our faith is justified, or false, in which case we are pathetic and deluded.
Some things can’t be proved as fact. Some things are not meant to be.
You’re confusing epistemology with ontology. Whether something can be proved as a fact is totally irrelevant to whether it is a fact.
And the conviction of the Reformers is that he spoke clearly on this question in Scripture.
And the Reformers are — as a matter of objective fact — either correct or incorrect in their conviction.
It is not a matter of opinion. One side is right, objectively, factually, right, and the other is wrong.
We can disagree about which side is right and which is wrong but at least let’s be clear we’re disagreeing about something real, something of substance, something that matters, not just opinions or feelings.
Ian: “You might disagree with this, but that puts you outside the Reformed tradition of which the C of E is a part.”
Dear Ian, I guess you already know that by changing ‘Reformed’ to ‘Catholic’ the same comment could be made in reverse.
The Church of England (597 to 2023) had drawn on both Reformed tradition and Catholic tradition, and still does today – as is demonstrably evident when you visit the wide cross-section of churches in England today.
I’m encouraging the accommodation of both traditions, and of diverse views and convictions on some things… because that’s just the reality of who people are as a broad Church, following God in a variety of expressions, but opening to love and grace even if there is not uniformity of view over things like… mitres.
The great majority of Christians throughout the world and throughout history have maintained their belief in the real presence. They still do. They support their belief by reference to scripture – whether or not Thiselton takes a different approach – by reference to the Didache, and to the tradition of some of the earliest Christians. It is Orthodox belief. If that isn’t revelation, then I don’t know what is.
S will always maintain that the NT can not possibly be incorrect. The very fact of there being two very distinct genealogies makes S quite incapable of maintaining that.
quite incapable of maintaining that.
So you agree that it’s a question of objective fact on which you think I am objectively wrong, not a matter of opinion. Just like the question of whether the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus is a matter of objective fact, and you think that it’s an objective fact that they do.
Oh I have always maintained that you are objectively wrong to maintain that the NT is always correct.
I accept that you believe, in good faith, that it is always correct. But have zero evidence, and very obvious examples that are evidence against such a belief.
‘S’: “Faith is a matter of facts.”
Faith is about relationship.
Faith is about relationship.
Relationship is about facts. Specifically relationship is about trust, and trust is about facts. If I have a relationship with you I am trusting that the facts I know about you are true, that you haven’t lied to me, that you haven’t misrepresented yourself, that you are who you seem to be.
If any of those are wrong then my trust is misplaced and I don’t have a relationship with you at all.
So yes, faith is about relationship, and relationship is about facts. So faith is about facts.
Oh I have always maintained that you are objectively wrong to maintain that the NT is always correct.
Great, that’s all sorted then. We can all go home.
Actually… there was just one more thing if you don’t mind. It’s probably nothing but it’s been bothering me.
See, you clearly think the bread and wine do in fact become the body and blood of Jesus.
And you think that the Bible says that they do become the body and blood. You wrote it right up there. 1 Corinthians, you wrote.
And that makes sense.
But then… you also just now wrote that you think the Bible is factually incorrect.
So it seems to me sir that you’ve contradicted yourself. You think they bread and wine do become the body and blood; you think the Bible says that they do; but you think the Bible is incorrect.
It just doesn’t fit, you see, any way I look at it.
Anyway, I’m sure there’s a simple explanation, sir, and you wouldn’t mind clearing it up, just so I can set my mind to rest.
Oh you have understood that all wrong unfortunately. Mostly because you have not read what I actually wrote and have made several inaccurate assumptions. It is all very easily explained.
I will explain – but only after you have cleared up my question that has been around some time. And that is how you can explain the very different genealogies, not least especially as Joseph is given as Jesus’ father- when we know that Joseph had no part in the patrilineage of Jesus? I mean, this is a major error especially as it impinges on doctrine.
I won’t be responding to you again until you answer fully. Simply saying it is ‘scene setting’ will not do.
And that is how you can explain the very different genealogies, not least especially as Joseph is given as Jesus’ father- when we know that Joseph had no part in the patrilineage of Jesus?
Sigh. Okay, let’s do this. First, let’s knock on the head the idea that Joseph is ‘given as Jesus’ father’ because that’s simply not true. Luke writes that ‘ He [Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph’ while Matthew identifies Joseph as ‘Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah — not as Jesus’ father.
So that dealt with, I suppose there are two things you think prove that the gospel accounts are inaccurate:
1. Luke includes more generations than Matthew
(b) They have different names between David and Joseph.
The first is easily explained: Matthew is giving an ‘edited highlights’. The names given are correct, but some are skipped. So no inaccuracies there.
The second point, well, Calvin reckons that everyone at that time went by two different names, and each writer chooses a different name for each person. Maybe, I guess, but I don’t actually find that all that plausible. Three or four maybe; but all of them? I think the answer’s simpler: Joseph was descended from King David by (at least) two different routes (more likely than not, actually, given the timescale involved and the fact Israel was quite an insular community); Luke gives one route and Matthew another (perhaps some of the generations Matthew skips are through the female line).
So neither genealogy is incorrect, though one is incomplete. And nobody claims Joseph is Jesus’ father.
Right then. Your explanation please.
S: thank you for your explanation and for taking the time and trouble to write. Christians have tried to make sense of the genealogies – including the fact that the line is traced through to Joseph – for 2000 years. There is no watertight explanation, and that is a problem for those who beleive in the absolute inerrancy of scripture. Your own explanation conflates a number of theories and I’m sure it’s as helpful as any. I don’t intend to go back and forth about details as I know that is what becomes a problem on this blog in particular.
Now to your own questions. Firstly I don’t claim that the bible is correct or incorrect anywhere. And I never will do. I don’t find those terms at all helpful when it comes to Holy Scripture. The New Testament is a mix of all kinds of genres of writing. The gospels were not written to present a watertight history of what happened. They were written so that people would believe the good news of Jesus Christ. So, they are sometimes being historical and sometimes being interpretative. Taken as a whole, the gospels are presenting us with an intertwined history and interpretation of history. And it can be difficult – and I’d say mostly impossible – to separate the two. That’s what makes study of them so fascinating.
You also have to add in to that mix what the early Christians thought. And that’s where other texts like the Didache – the teaching of the Apostles- and the writings of the early Church Fathers – are important.
Note that I used the word ‘emerging’ in my very first post about the real presence. The concept was by no means fully formed when the NT was written, so I just don’t think the NT tells us about real presence. But the Didache and some of the Fathers are grappling with what it means.
St Paul was writing a letter to a particular situation. I don’t think he was proclaiming something about the real presence. I think he was saying that you can’t just eat the elements of this last supper/Eucharistic meal as you would dinner or breakfast or an ordinary meal. He was saying that you need to have in mind the story of the Good News of Jesus Christ – his birth, life, death and resurrection – when you do this. You need to know about his risen and glorified body. Otherwise this meal falls into disrepute. And you need to know what other Christians – the body of Christ – are thinking about this special meal. Because, as I say, their doctrine about it all was still emerging.
Now the doctrine of the real presence did develop and the vast majority of Christians since the early Church and to this day do hold to the real presence. But I don’t think the doctrine of transubtantiation is helpful. Rather, I prefer to use the word transignification. I have always found the work of Edward Schillebeeckx helpful and he unpacks the idea of transignification as helpfully as anyone. It also is much closer to what Anglicans believe.
I hope this helps. Inevitably we both miss things out because one has to be brief in these posts. I don’t believe going back and forth is helpful so I don’t propose to do that. But I am thankful that we can write in ways that are not combative but in the spirit of debate, and I thank you for your contribution and to Ian for hosting the debate.
Firstly I don’t claim that the bible is correct or incorrect anywhere.
I assume your device has ‘corrected’ that from ‘everywhere’ as you certainly have claimed that the Bible (there’s a capital ‘B’, you know, it’s a proper noun) is incorrect in some places.
Taken as a whole, the gospels are presenting us with an intertwined history and interpretation of history. And it can be difficult – and I’d say mostly impossible – to separate the two.
But doesn’t that mean that is impossible to know which bits of the gospels actually happened and which were made up as ‘interpretation’? And wouldn’t that apply to, say, the resurrection?
You also have to add in to that mix what the early Christians thought.
What the early Christians thought doesn’t really matter though. What matters is what is actually true. What people thought is of merely historical interest; for instance the story of how the heliocentric model came to be accepted is historically interesting (and has some great characters in it), but what actually matters is that it’s true. So that stuff about the Didache is all irrelevant. I don’t care what people thought; I care what is true.
Now the doctrine of the real presence did develop and the vast majority of Christians since the early Church and to this day do hold to the real presence. But I don’t think the doctrine of transubtantiation is helpful. Rather, I prefer to use the word transignification.
So with that said I don’t care and am not asking you what ‘the vast majority of Christians’ have thought, I’m asking what you think odd happening to the bread and the wine. So please don’t answer questions by referring to what other people have thought; please only give what you think.
So I looked up ‘transignification’ (shouldn’t there be two ‘s’s in that? ‘Trans’ Is the prefix, not ‘tran’). And I have some questions. There first one is:
Transiginification seems to be saying that there is a real ontological change in the bread and the wine; but that that change is only prescriptions to believers. But what I find unclear was whether:
1. all the bread and wine undergoes this real ontological change, but only believers can perceive it (so unbelievers are eating ontologically changed bread and wine but are unaware of that); or
b) only the bread and wine consumed by believers is ontologically changed (so unbelievers are just eating normal, unchanged bread and wine).
There are both sensible positions but obviously there are mutually exclusive and can’t both be true, and it’s vitality important which is the case because it matters where the difference is in the underlying reality or merely in the perception of that underlying reality.
So could you clarify which of these you think is happening? And again I’m not interested in Rusty other people may have thought; I’d like to know what you think is really happening to the bread and wine.
Thanks S. Let me repeat one part because it seems you didn’t read it.
“Inevitably we both miss things out because one has to be brief in these posts. I don’t believe going back and forth is helpful so I don’t propose to do that. “
Ian will need to expressly indicate if he wishes a long series of posts between us on something that is not part of a discussion about mitres. Plus I don’t have unlimited time.
Let me very briefly reply. I don’t think one can separate the Gospels and NT from what the early Church thought. They are a product of the early Church. And I think you can pretty readily process what is factual in the bible and what isn’t. You don’t think the Flood of Noah happened exactly as it written in Genesis surely?
Yes, transignification has just the one S. I’d suggest reading some Schillebeeckx. I’ve explained that I find this approach to the Eucharist very helpful and I’ve told what I think in some detail, even referencing it with the passage from 1 Corinthians.
And I think you can pretty readily process what is factual in the bible and what isn’t.
So are the resurrection accounts factual? Did Jesus actually eat fish after His death? That’s kind of an important question, and maybe the answer seems obvious (or ‘readily processed’) to you but it doesn’t to me so can you just clarify whether that bit is factual or not?
I’ve explained that I find this approach to the Eucharist very helpful and I’ve told what I think in some detail, even referencing it with the passage from 1 Corinthians.
But could you just answer the question about whether the difference in the bread and wine consumed by believers and non-believers is a real difference, or only an apparent difference?
These things aren’t clear to you? You mean you DO think the flood happened exactly as Genesis records it? If you don’t, then why don’t you? And what is it doing in the bible if it’s not what actually happened?
I’d need your answer to those questions before I answer anything else at all.
I think you can pretty readily process what is factual in the bible and what isn’t.
Actually doesn’t that contradict what you wrote earlier:
‘Taken as a whole, the gospels are presenting us with an intertwined history and interpretation of history. And it can be difficult – and I’d say mostly impossible – to separate the two. ‘
How can we both ‘pretty readily process what is factual in the bible and what isn’t’ when ‘it can be difficult – and I’d say mostly impossible – to separate [the facts and the interpretation]’?
Surely if we can ‘readily process’ what’s factual and what isn’t then we can easily separate the facts from the interpretation. Contrariwise, if it’s mostly impossible to separate out the facts from the interpretation, then we can’t ‘readily process’ what’s factual and what’s not, can we?
These things aren’t clear to you?
If they’re clear to you then why don’t you just answer the question?
Why engage in avoidance tactics?
You mean you DO think the flood happened exactly as Genesis records it?
I think Genesis is a different kind of literature to the gospels. I’ve asked you a question about the gospels: did Jesus eat fish after He died? Is that a factual account or not?
I mean, the ‘obvious’ answer would seem to be ‘no, of course it’s not factual; dead men don’t eat fish. What happened was that after Jesus’ death, his followers felt very strongly that he was still with them, speaking to and guiding them, although he wasn’t physically present. So in order to get across to their readers how this felt, they made up an illustrative story of Jesus eating fish with them as they used to do’.
Is that what you think happened?
Yes, the resurrection accounts tell us actual facts about the meeting of the disciples with the risen Christ.
Now, third time lucky, so I will say it again:
“Inevitably we both miss things out because one has to be brief in these posts. I don’t believe going back and forth is helpful so I don’t propose to do that. “
“Ian will need to *expressly indicate* if he wishes a long series of posts between us on something that is not part of a discussion about mitres. Plus I don’t have unlimited time.”
None of that is avoidance. It’s just common courtesy. There is a lot more that can be said. But I’m not prepared to trespass on someone else’s blog.
Yes, the resurrection accounts tell us actual facts about the meeting of the disciples with the risen Christ.
Actual physical facts? That is, Jesus, after His death, physically lifted up a piece of fish in his fingers, put it in His mouth, chewed and swallowed?
You don’t just mean the resurrection accounts give us an ‘interpretation’ of the actual emotional facts of how the disciples felt close to Jesus after His resurrection?
If there had been a camera there, could it have taken a picture of the risen Jesus in the act of eating fish?
And I mean if you’re honestly worried about clogging up the comments section it would take about ten times fewer posts for you to just answer the question than it does for you to complain about being asked the question.
I tend to think mitres look foolish. I am willing to concede that this is because of when and where I grew up in the Anglican church. The bishop did not wear one when I was confirmed. I think they looks foolish. When a bishop puts it is put on only at certain times, such as the absolution and blessing, for me gives the appearance that his power comes either from the mitre directly or from God through the mitre.
Thanks for your anecdote, Joe.
God, via His Spirit, working through a Mitre ?
I don’t think that’s quite how the Apostles would have envisaged things.
gives the appearance that his power comes either from the mitre directly or from God through the mitre
Like Samson? If you take a bishop’s mitre off does he lose his strength? Why, why why, Delilah?
On this question (really, what a lot of comments about something that just isn’t a burning question at the moment!) I always remember the story told by an Evangelical bishop fifty-odd years ago. He’d just been consecrated and was about to make his first episcopal visit to an Anglo-Catholic church; he knew he’d be expected to wear a mitre but he wasn’t keen (to put it mildly) on doing so. Wanting to resolve his problem, he rang up the Vicar and explained his dilemma. The Vicar listened to what he had to say, then he replied: “Father, I want you to come; I want you to speak to my people; and I want them to remember what you say to them. If you don’t wear a mitre, all they’ll remember is that you didn’t wear a mitre.”
Steve – there are lots of comments because mitres are very funny and we all need a bit of light relief right now.
mitres are very funny
You say that but some people take them very seriously. If they were banned there’s every chance of a bunch of renegade bishops taking up arms and founding an irregular militia. And you really wouldn’t want to tangle with the Church of England’s paramillinery wing.
You mitre got that right.
Anton(io) :
“You mitre got that right-a” ?
Are you Italiano ?
1/8th Irish, the rest English with possibly a little Welsh. Culturally English.
Jock, the fact they are pointed would give Bishops aerodynamic properties if they believed in the rapture would it not?
Chris – well, this gives a whole new meaning to the term ‘flying bishop’.
🙂 🙂 🙂
‘If you don’t wear a mitre, all they’ll remember is that you didn’t wear a mitre’
What a truly ridiculous reason for wearing one! I would hope that his words might be even more memorable!
What a truly ridiculous reason for wearing one
Imagine what they might have remembered if he’d washed their feet as well
Paul –
Especially if the mitre-less bishop preached on Matthew 23:5-12.
Yes, Steve – but some may also have involuntarily remembered the message of the ‘mitre-less’ Bishop – especially if he preached on Matthew 23:5-12.
The experience of the Evangelical bishop mentioned by Steve sounds very much like that of the late David Sheppard. Andrew Bradstock mentions such an occasion in his biography of Sheppard, “David Sheppard Batting for the Poor” , 2019, at page 157 when Sheppard was Bishop of Woolwich.-Ross
Paul seemed to believe that gifts of the Spirit or the Spirit himself were given or could be given by the laying on of hands, so is it not fair enough if some bishops believe the symbolism is important? Just a shame that it seems rare for any gifts to be actually imparted following confirmation etc. Symbolic and nothing else.
As for mitres, Ive literally nothing to say on that important subject.
Colin Buchanan wanted them “thrown into the sea” (I think it was “see”).
Maurice Wood wasn’t the only Bishop in living memory who didn’t wear a mitre. One of the Bishops of Stockport (1990s) didn’t. Roughly the conversation with his diocesan was “you asked me to be a bishop, nothing was said about a mitre”.
They are ridiculous visually and theologically… Often looking exactly that… Sharpened pencils /tall bishops… or Stubby pencils… You get the picture!
Perversely maybe, I find occasional clerical collar wearing helpful (but not always).
Bishop Proudie of Barchester also never wore a mitre (apparently).
The problem with the Bishops is not them wearing mitres. The Church of England believes in apostolic succession like the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches and descends directly from the Roman Catholic church post the Reformation. It is not a primarily evangelical church like the Baptist or Presbyterian or Pentecostal or charismatic churches but primarily an episcopal church with a hierarchy from Bishops down where Bishops and Archbishops have a role in its governance.
The problem with some Bishops though is they are not supporting Parish ministry enough and concentrating too much power in the diocese and the centre, not that they wear mitres
It is not a primarily evangelical church like the Baptist or Presbyterian or Pentecostal or charismatic churches but primarily an episcopal church with a hierarchy from Bishops down […]
The problem with some Bishops though is they are not supporting Parish ministry enough and concentrating too much power in the diocese and the centre,
Wait I’m losing track do you think hierarchical centralisation of power is a good thing or a bad thing?
‘The Church of England believes in apostolic succession like the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches and descends directly from the Roman Catholic church post the Reformation.’
The C of E is Protestant and Reformed, taking the church back to its roots in scripture and the teaching of Jesus. Ask King Charles.
doesnt King Charles believe that all ‘faiths’ are equal and lead to God? Not sure he’s the one to ask. He seems to ignore Jesus’ teaching (like on adultery) but then so does the church…
The C of E is also Catholic and Apostolic. Ask the Archbishop of Canterbury. The King had Catholic cardinals and Orthodox priests involved in his coronation too
The King had Catholic cardinals and Orthodox priests involved in his coronation too
And the moderator of the Church of Scotland. Of course, the King magically stops being an Anglican and becomes a Presbyterian as soon as he crosses Hadrian’s Wall.
The moderator wore a natty Geneva gown at the coronation.
No, the King is only an ordinary member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and sends a representative as observer at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
The King remains Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church of England however
No, the King is only an ordinary member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
That’s what I wrote. As soon as the King crosses the border he stops being an Anglican and becomes a Presbyterian. Like his late mother before him, and unlike him she was actually a Christian.
A lovely article on Her late Majesty: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-queen-elizabeth-was-a-presbyterian-when-she-died/
Her son will really never measure up.
Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II may have been more low church Protestant but as that article makes clear King Charles III is closest to the Greek Orthodox of his father’s family if any Christian denomination. See also the prominent role of the Orthodox priests chant at his coronation and his robes which were very in the Orthodox style
Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II may have been more low church Protestant but as that article makes clear King Charles III is closest to the Greek Orthodox of his father’s family if any Christian denomination.
The only good thing about King Charles III is that his reign will be mercifully short. Hopefully his son will then be more like Her late Majesty.
William and Kate are classic liberal Catholic Church of England as far as their Christianity goes
This is highly pertinent – on Saturday members of my church attended an ordination, often way out of their experience, and were totally bemused by not just mitres but the plethora of other ancient and irrelevant symbolism involved. Time to move on.
If ordinands do not wish to be involved with the ancient symbolism that is involved in a Church of England ordination, they are being ordained in the wrong Church. Time for them to move on.
If ordinands do not wish to be involved with the ancient symbolism that is involved in a Church of England ordination, they are being ordained in the wrong Church. Time for them to move on.
If only someone had told the ones who started the mitre craze a hundred years ago that if they wanted to wear funny hats they were being ordained in the wrong church (no capital, there’s only one capital-C Church) and it was time for them to move on, eh? Think how much better things would be. Still, better late than never.
After investing heavily in iberal training in deconstructing theological tradition and doctrine of the CoE, unless the ordinands submit and adhere, with an implicit declaration of conformity to Johnny and Jenny come- lately millinery tradition they should move on. s they. are not selcome. Such revisionist progressive thiinking is to be excluded and barred by order of the DDO’s.
I vote for Tommy Cooper’s fez.. as required head dress in the hatters tea party..
Geoff: it’s really important to read what was actually said. Tim Storey referred to “not just mitres but the plethora of other ancient and irrelevant symbolism involved” and suggested we move on from all of that. My point remains. If ordinands do not wish to involve themselves with the plethora of other symbolism, I.e. things other than mitres, then they probably don’t want to be ordained in the CofE but some other denomination.
If ordinands do not wish to involve themselves with the plethora of other symbolism, […] then they probably don’t want to be ordained in the CofE but some other denomination.
Now I’m confused. Do you think old things, like the Articles, are good or not? Because sometimes you say that clergy are free to decide for themselves which bits of the Articles to accept and which to reject; but now you’re saying that if they don’t buy into all the old symbolism they are in the wrong denomination.
And the Articles, being doctrine, are surely much more important than mere symbolism.
Surely then ‘if ordinands don’t want to accept the Articles […] then they probably don’t want to be ordained in the CofE but some other denomination’?
Or what’s the difference?
Perhaps those who do not wish to accept the ancient teaching of the church on same-sex sexual relationships should move on to…
‘My wife has a bit of a thing for stealing ecclesiastical headgear, but she’s so quick she’s never been punished for it.’
‘A bishop’s mitre?’
‘He’d have to catch her first.’
And it is far from a “pretty pointless discussion” if ordinands who disagree “are being ordained in the wrong church” and it is “Time for them to move on.”
It’s not important, and also if you disagree you don’t belong in the denomination.
This is a bit like the classic woke response: ‘this isn’t happening, it’s all right-wing lies, and also it’s good that it’s happening and if you disagree you’re a Nazi’
My bishop came to lead a confirmation service at our church at the end of April. He’s still relatively new to the position, but he’s doing an excellent job.
As we were getting ready before the service, he said to me, “As I travel around the diocese, I’m aware that there are several levels of ‘bishopness’ I can bring with me. I’m guessing that at St. Margaret’s, a low level would be appropriate.” I agreed, and the only official insignia of office he used in the service was his pastoral staff.
This fit in well with our rather relaxed Anglican ethos. At other places Bishop Steve goes, they’re used to a higher level of ceremony, and he fits into that. At all places, he takes a simple gospel message of the grace of God and the call to live the way of love. And the message is always good.
Personally, I think mitres look silly. Others find them comforting. We’re all different, and wise bishops are aware of that. Whatever barriers get in the way of the message of the gospel being heard, those barriers should be removed. In some churches, wearing a mitre might be such a barrier. In others, NOT wearing one might be a barrier. Wisely, my bishop has decided that’s not the trench he wants to die in. And I agree with him.
I wonder if it worth asking the question as to why, in a church which is facing near terminal decline, not wearing a mitre should be any kind of barrier to anything? Could it be that this is precisely our problem—that what someone wears is judged of such importance?
I would also add that ‘being all things to all C of E people’ is a sign of the weakness of episcopal leadership.
I’m totally of the uncircumcision crowd myself, but I’m reminded that to Paul ‘neither circumcision, *nor uncircumcision*, counts for anything.’ I heard Gordon Fee speak on this text at Regent College once, reminding us that in Christian exposition we regularly quote the part about circumcision not mattering, and forget that uncircumcision doesn’t matter either. Some Christians followed Jesus outside of Jewish traditions, others followed Jesus in the context of Jewish traditions. Gordon’s memorable quote was “It’s not an issue, unless you make it an issue, and then that becomes the issue.”
“All things to all people’ may or may not be a sign of weakness, but it was definitely an apostolic strategy that Paul adopted when he needed to. He spells it out very clearly in 1 Corinthians 9.
Oh, and I should have clarified that I’m in the Anglican Church of Canada, not the C of E. We’re very much a minority church in Canada, and those who want ceremony-free worship have lots of options. Those who come to us, tend to come to us because the ceremonial is helpful to them. Some, like me, prefer a fairly simple level of ceremony. Others like it more elaborate. Disciples are being made and formed in both contexts.
We’re very much a minority church in Canada
That’s okay the Church of England is heading that way in England too
In Canada well over half of Canadian Christians are Roman Catholic now (albeit Francophile Quebec boosts that significantly).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada
Why is it? Anglo Catholics tolerate evangelicals like you having your low church services in your churches if they wish and if you want your mitre free evangelical bishops that is your affair. We certainly expect our bishops to wear their mitres and probably costume when visiting Anglo Catholic churches, whether liberal or conservative.
It should also be pointed out the Roman Catholic church remains comfortably the largest single Christian denomination with over a billion members and all their bishops have mitres in services from the Pope down
What’s the big deal about ‘tolerance’? Where are the boundaries? What is wrong with us all actually believing Anglican doctrine?
We do, doctrine based on the BCP. However Anglo Catholics want their Bishops to wear mitres when they visit their Parish churches even if evangelicals don’t
We do, doctrine based on the BCP.
And the Articles, yes?
However Anglo Catholics want their Bishops to wear mitres when they visit their Parish churches even if evangelicals don’t
If that’s what you want then you should leave the Church of England where mitres are a recent innovation and join the Roman church which has been using them for centuries, surely.
No, as the Church of England is directly descended from the Roman Catholic Church and via apostolic succession continues its line of Bishops from St Peter the mitre is a good reflection of that.
Anglo Catholic Bishops in the Church of England are perfectly entitled to wear mitres as their Anglo Catholic congregations prefer. Nobody is forcing you lower church evangelicals to have your Bishops wear them
No, as the Church of England is directly descended from the Roman Catholic Church and via apostolic succession continues its line of Bishops from St Peter the mitre is a good reflection of that.
Then why did Church of England bishops only start wearing mitres about a hundred years ago? Did they, like, just forget?
Thanks Tim. That would be the approach of most bishops in the UK too. It honours all. It is a leadership quality. I could wish this topic (like others) had been set up as a discussion between Ian and someone from a different Christian approach and understanding of robes, ritual, symbol, drama. Much of the commenting here is expressing exactly what you would expect from folk who prefer low church informality. That’s OK. But those in other traditions have given it thought too. And doesn’t the ‘silly’ argument come perilously close to suggesting the church should dress to be aligned with contemporary fashion – perish the thought!
That I think something looks or sounds ‘silly’ says more about me, my experience, preferences and fashion choices, in the first instance. It may be revealing my ignorance. What I find silly or strange may actually be very important but for reasons I will struggle to grasp without taking time to understand it better.
And doesn’t the ‘silly’ argument come perilously close to suggesting the church should dress to be aligned with contemporary fashion – perish the thought!
You know what doesn’t look silly and isn’t aligned with contemporary fashion?
What I find silly or strange may actually be very important but for reasons I will struggle to grasp without taking time to understand it better.
But also what you think is very important might actually be silly for reasons you will struggle to grasp because you have swallowed false myths (eg that mitres represent flames).
Stop being so rude and unpleasant to Tim.
Tim does not comment very often on this sight and others who do should welcome him and affirm his involvement.
David, I am always happy to have a discussion. I would be interested to hear from someone who will make the positive case for mitres.
But stating ‘it is what we have always done’ and ‘it is what the congregation wants’ are not very persuasive. We have not always done it, and why are we letting congregations make decisions for bishops on this?
I have not yet heard any other arguments made.
Have you?
why are we letting congregations make decisions for bishops on this?
Making bishops answerable to congregations might not be such a bad thing actually, but if you’re going to do it you have to be consistent and do it across the board ie bishops have to justify themselves to congregations on doctrine as well as headgear.
Congregations might expect bishops to wear mitres and believe in Hell, and then where would we be?
Article XXXIV says:
‘It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’ s Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
‘Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.’
Obviously there are some people who feel that distinctive episcopal robes (copes, mitres, rochets, chimeres) are ‘against God’s word’, either because (a) they aren’t commanded in scripture (the classic Reformed tradition being that if a thing isn’t specifically commanded in scripture, we shouldn’t do it) or because (b) they provide unnecessary pomp and circumstance, contrary to the spirit of servant leadership that Jesus commanded. I take it that (b) would be a classic Anglican way of arguing against mitres et al, since our tradition about liturgical customs, unlike the Reformed view, tends to be that if it isn’t *forbidden* in scripture (‘which be not repugnant to the Word of God’), we’re free to do it.
The problem with (b) is that it’s always subjective. Some people say that copes and mitres emphasize the apostolic succession and symbolise the unique role of the bishop in catholic order. Other people say copes and mitres contradict Jesus’ warning about people who like to parade about in long robes and have seats of authority at feasts etc. etc. I get that, but the problem is, it can be used against *all* clergy robes, not just episcopal headgear. If you want to make that argument consistently, it seems to me that you have to make it against all clergy robes.
And meanwhile, I’ve got bigger fish to fry. I can’t be making an issue of everything I don’t like about church life. My dad used to do that, and he rarely lasted longer than three years in a parish. ‘Pick your fights carefully’ is one of my guiding principles as a parish rector. I just don’t think episcopal headgear is worth fighting over.
National and/or regimental flags in churches, now—that’s another matter altogether!
If you want to make that argument consistently, it seems to me that you have to make it against all clergy robes.
Your terms are acceptable.
‘S’ says,
‘If you want to make that argument consistently, it seems to me that you have to make it against all clergy robes.
Your terms are acceptable.’
I respect that view, but as I said, I’ve got bigger fish to fry.
P.S. Sorry, ‘S’, for some reason the blog engine won’t let me ‘reply’ directly to your reply.
And now, as I’ve said all I’ve got to say on this subject, I’m off. Have a good day, everyone.
Thanks Tim. What I find fascinating is the number of people here and on social media who say ‘This is not important, I have better things to do’ and then comment here rather than on my other posts eg on exposition of Sunday gospel readings!
There is a very clear contradiction between elaborate dress and ceremonial which focuses on the person of the leader, and the teaching of Jesus, as others have pointed out. It comes here:
‘Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at feasts.’ (Luke 20.45).
When any Christian leader wears extravagant robes, sits on a ‘throne’ at the centre of attention in a service, and is addressed by unique honorifics, it is very hard not to see a direct parallel here.
Ian I didn’t say the stuff in quotes. Nor do I believe it. The focus on mitres is trivialising the possibility of a more helpful discussion. I suggested a discussion around Christian ritual, symbol and drama. The place, or not, of mitres, bishops chairs and much else, will be found there, in context.And I really find it very hard to believe you don’t know any anglo catholics or their approach to all this!
Hi David. I didn’t claim you did say the things in quotation marks. I’m puzzled as to why you think I did. But these are the two most common arguments made.
I am all for ritual, symbol, and drama—but as long as we critique the theology that it expresses. The bishop who ordained me put a throne on a high dais elevated at the intersection of nave and transept, and made much of dramatically putting on a removing his mitre at key points in the service. The message was clear in terms of symbolism: he was the centre of the drama. That place is actually due to God alone.
I do know Anglo-Catholics, and they tell me that mitres are important because bishops are the esse of the Church, and they alone have authority to ordain, to confer the Spirit, and to rule over the Church. I don’t think any of those ideas are Biblical—and in fact contradict scripture and the Reformed theology of the C of E.
So I don’t think they are persuasive arguments.
Which arguments have you come across which you find persuasive and are true to the Protestant and Reformed faith of our church?
In some churches, wearing a mitre might be such a barrier. In others, NOT wearing one might be a barrier.
How lucky you are to have such homogeneous churches that given a given church the same thing is a barrier to every single member of the congregation!
There’s no need to get sarcastic about it, S. I’m not trying to put down other people’s preferences.
The fact is that I pastor a suburban church in a major city. If people want a fairly low level of ceremonial in the Anglican tradition, they’ll come to churches like St. Margaret’s. If they want a higher level of ceremony, there are several options for them within easy reach. So yes, there may well be a higher level of homogeneity in our city Anglican parishes. And if people want a worship band and no liturgy, there are several large Alliance, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches that will do that very well.
Tim – I agree – I think that mitres look silly, but if a bishop had dandruff I would take great comfort in the fact that he or she was wearing a mitre.
What a wise comment Tim: “We’re all different… and wise bishops are aware of that. In some churches, wearing a mitre might be such a barrier. In others, NOT wearing one might be a barrier. Wisely, my bishop has decided that’s not the trench he wants to die in. And I agree with him.”
Some people like marmite sandwiches. Some people don’t. Depending on their preference, you either make them a plateload, or you give them cucumber sandwiches instead. Just common thoughtfulness.
Except that marmite sandwiches don’t signify a doctrine of ministry.
For most of those in favour of them, mitres do.
Most people in the Church of England are fine with mitres, and anyway have no idea of any doctrinal issues about them (are there any?)
For most of these people in the pews it is just a bishop being a bishop, and they are far more concerned about local pastoral issues.
But if a visiting bishop varies presentation based on the particular churchmanship of a local church, what is not to like? In that case, it would just be showing consideration in a broad church with varied traditions.
For the record, I’m not that keen on them myself, but it’s nothing of importance (in the context of our suffering world). It’s just uniform. On a hospital ward a nurse wears a different uniform to a student, and a senior nurse often wears a different uniform to a Band 5 nurse, but nobody thinks they are being pompous. They are just getting on faithfully with their jobs.
On a hospital ward a nurse wears a different uniform to a student, and a senior nurse often wears a different uniform to a Band 5 nurse, but nobody thinks they are being pompous.
Because none of them wear crowns! If consultants started going around wearing crowns to show that they were a special class set apart from the ordinary staff of the hospital and that they alone had absolute unchallengeable authority then I bet the nurses would have something to say about it.
I hope I have a crown one day as a royal princess. I will lay it down in honour of my God, but I hope I get it back!
That’s where all this is heading because our vocation is to be a royal priesthood and the children of the Sovereign God..
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me… to bestow on them a crown of beauty… and a garment of praise” (Isaiah 61)
“I rejoice greatly in my God, who has clothed me with garments of salvation… as a bride adorns herself with her jewels… so God will make righteousness and praise spring up before all the nations” (Isaiah 61)
“You will be called by a new name… you will be a crown of splendour in God’s hands… no longer will they call you ‘Deserted’ or your land ‘Desolate’. But you will be called ‘My delight is in her’ and your land called ‘Married’. For God will take delight in you.” (Isaiah 62)
“As a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you… You will be called ‘Sought after’, the City not deserted.” (Isaiah 62)
“How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh how beautiful!… All beautiful you are! You have stolen my heart… Turn your eyes from me. They overwhelm me.”
And the betrothed replies: “I belong to my lover and his desire is for me.” (Song of Songs)
So, yes, I really hope for a crown.
For now, many of us are dressed in rags, and only some get to wear symbolic crowns. But crowns we shall wear, and the Holy One who suffered a crown of thorns, He will be crowned over all, and every knee shall bow.
So, yes, I really hope for a crown.
Indeed (though as the old song goes, if you do not bear a cross you won’t wear a crown).
For now, many of us are dressed in rags, and only some get to wear symbolic crowns.
That’s exactly the point. There’s no reason for anyone to be wearing a symbolic crown. It is wrong that some wear symbolic crowns and some don’t.
Ref. Tim Chesterton
July 4, 2023 at 3:05 am
Ah sanity returns Tim. I wonder if it is worth considering Paul in
1 COR.9 VS.19 – 23 ?
9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
9:23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Hello Alan,
Two points
1 who is the weaker? The hat wearer in the first place? The Bishops?
2 for the sake of the gospel. Is it really? Is that not the nub of the article? Some responses indicate that it is very far from the gospel and that the gospel has nothing to do with it.
The officers of the Christian Church during the first few centuries of it’s existence were content to officiate in the dress of civil life – as were the apostles and First century ‘elders’, who were also called “bishops” or “overseers”. Consequently, in the First Century, elders = bishops = overseers. The Greek ‘presbuteros’ (elders) = ‘episkopos’ (bishops or overseers). Compare Acts 20:17, with Acts 20:28.
The original Church and Gospel, as exemplified in the book ‘The Acts of the Apostles’, had nothing to do with a specialized ‘clergy’ class entitled “Priests” and ‘Archbishops’, etcetera, nor with fancy, ‘ecclesiastical’ dress.
Good to see you back, Alan.
God bless you, sir,
That passage has exercised my mind too.
But what if the “message” given by this /that is either the polar opposite to an important Christian value or, at least, undermines it?
I can’t see that mitres (or lavish gold) communicate the Servant King.
The “Robes thing” in the CofE hasn’t been unchanged in the 5 decades of my ordination. In the 70s it was far more black scarf/surplice at ordinations. These days the bishops (who else?) have firmly pushed stoles. It’s not unusual to get it stipulated in the invite, clearly as first preference. A fairly recent Bishop of Salisbury used to require ordinands to prostrate before him at their “priestings”.
I was ordained in Salisbury, and the then bishop put his throne at the centre of a raised dais so we could all see and admire him.
the then bishop put his throne at the centre of a raised dais so we could all see and admire him.
I hope he did it himself, would have been great to watch him tripping over his skirt, trying to shove the throne into place with one hand while using the other to stop his mitre falling off, etc
‘So we could all see’ makes sense doesn’t it? He was leading the service.
‘So we could all see’ makes sense doesn’t it? He was leading the service.
Who leads a service sitting down?! Presumably he led the service from the pulpit where there would be no trouble seeing him (that being what pulpits are generally designed for) or the lectern; why would anyone need to see him during the bits when he was sitting down?
There are better ways to lead a service. And the service was mostly led from elsewhere. The person concerned was described to me as ‘the last of the Prince bishops’.
or perhaps he thought ceremony was important? It seems to be for many in the CoE, including its leaders. But if that’s what you thought about him, ok.
or perhaps he thought ceremony was important?
There are ways to do ceremony without putting yourself at the centre of it. Think of those Presbyterian churches where the congregation stands for the entry of the Bible. That’s ceremony but it correctly puts God at the centre, not the person taking the service.
… and perhaps also smell him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx6hAQmR1fg
(Dave Allen’s classic ‘did you fart’ sketch)
Ian and Ian,
What you both describe, I find truly gross, hideous and so very far from what we read in the New Testament, the Gospels and Acts and the Epistles.
‘ PALACE, n. A fine and costly residence, particularly that of a great official. The residence of a high dignitary of the Christian Church is called a palace; that of the Founder of his religion was known as a field, or wayside. There is progress.’
The Devil’s Dictionary , Ambrose Bierce
I’m afraid both have given these events and bishops a highly pejorative spin.
Please do explain/discuss with NT scriptural corroborated, warrant, David, instead of mere declamation.
Geoff – just one. On what basis is the assumption made that a bishop (sitting where all bishops sit to ordain actually) has deliberately moved their throne to the ‘centre’ (notice) of a ‘raised’ (notice) dais to be admired by everyone? (a dais is always ‘raised’ by the way). Meanwhile I have asked Ian to host a genuine discussion with someone from a more catholic approach to ritual, symbol and drama. Until that happens the discussion will tend to proceed on the basis of common evangelical misunderstandings and – at times – prejudices.
David, it could be on the basis of good understanding with which we disagree. Elsewhere I have invited you (or anyone) to share an argument for mitres which accords with the Protestant Reformed doctrine of the C of E.
David,
You seem to proceed on the basis that evangeliicals misunderstand symbolism. But what the symbolism in scripture is fulfilled in patterns, types, antitypes in Christ Jesus.
But what you don’t do even on your one point, is to seek to ground the symbolism in the NT, as a bBible teacher. Indeed, so far as I can see there is no NT warrant at all for such grandiose symbolism; the opposite pertains.. I do stand to be corrected. Please help me to understand.
Stuff like this …. ‘Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account’. Hebs 13.17
‘We ask you, brothers and sisters, to respect those who labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work’. 1Thess 5.12-13
David, that’s important…but what does it have to do with people wearing chasubles and mitres? How come Paul managed to advocate such respect without saying ‘And they will wear distinctive clothing as part of this’? And how did the C of E manage this for 350 years without mitres?
Thanks David.
I get that. All Christians are to come under authority. But that is not what I see here, and is not what is seen in the NT leadership which has the opposite mood ; not Lording it over, not being pedestaled or mitred in all its symbolism. All the leaders pointed away from themselves, to Christ Jesus.
Further comment could be made on the scripture cited, as it is important, but it would takes us beyond this present topic.
Thanks.
How come Paul managed to advocate such respect without saying ‘And they will wear distinctive clothing as part of this’?
The key point surely being that Paul asks for leaders to be given respect because of the job that they are doing, not because they are somehow a special type of person. It’s about the role, not something ontological about the person.
And there are indeed examples of people who dress according to their roles: doctors in white coats, waiters, police constables. And sometimes, as with police constables, the dress involves headgear.
But what it doesn’t tend to involve is a crown. Crowns are generally used to indicate a special sort of person, not the job that someone is doing. When Her late Majesty, God rest her soul, wore her crown on occasions like the State Opening of Parliament, it was an indication of who she was, not what she was doing; as you can see from the fact that when Prince Charlie deputised for her, he didn’t wear the crown even though he was doing the job.
That’s why mitres tend to go with, and be indicative of, the really serious error in theology, which is the idea that bishops are somehow a special kind of person, the only conduits of the Spirit, that they somehow embody the Church.
In a sense it’s right that the mitres are just a symptom. But they’re a symptom of a really serious disease that needs to be rooted out, which is that idea.
They do look silly. But if they just looked silly then hey, let people look silly. But they don’t just look silly: they encapsulate and lead people into a serious theological error and that’s why they should go.
Or in other words it’s not the ‘approach to ritual, symbol and drama’ that’s the issue, it’s what is being symbolised: the Roman idea of ontological priesthood (priests of course being other things that don’t belong anywhere near a Christian church).
at their “priestings”.
How intriguing. Is ‘to priest’ a transitive or an intransitive verb, do you know?
Refs. Peter
July 4, 2023 at 10:22 am
Yes,You are very welcome Tim.
Your insights are a refreshing change from the disfunctional.
I admit that 1Cor 9 is complex, however I think Paul is a fpllower of Jesus Christ in that He submited to the Publicans etc. That is to say that
He engaged with them,not conforming to them, in order to save some.
For instance if I am of a “Clappy happy persuasion but there is only a very High anglican church in my town to join with them may be to engage with them perhaps stating that christianity is more than just about rituals, or engagement in works of mercy where the afflicted are
not brought to Christ. Or if high anglican in reverse says to the clappy happy that christianity is more than an appeal to the emotions but the releasing of the afflicted from bondage and bringing relief to the broken hearted and the breaking of every yoke that may be oppressing them. I for one could be happy to be in either situation for the sake of the Gospel.
When visiting various Anglican Cathedrals one is impressed with the sence of reverence, that it is aplace to engage in prayer. Even foreign visitors give respect to the quietness and stillness. Alas many other churches do not respect the House of God, being a cacophony of conversations which overwhelms the troubled soul’s engagement with God. God instituted exotic priestly robes that referenced holiness which in post Jesus Christ is “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ,”” Putting on bowels of mercy.”
Hello Alan.
Were n’t Cathedrals built to the glory of God? But now, today? Ichabod?
Even the very idea and terminology of high church and low church I find grievous and certainly unscriptural.
Mere Christians can relate to and have fellowship with other mere Christians, whether high, low, happy clappy, depressed, rich, poor, blood- bought all.
Hmmm …. let’s scrap the “silly” coronation ceremony, the State Opening of Parliament, graduation ceremonies and a plethora of other customs and traditions too!
Doesn’t the Anglican claim to be ‘catholic’ and uphold early Church Tradition and teaching ? From the very beginning of the Church, the three degrees of Church ministry have been called bishop, priest, and deacon. There are two degrees of ministerial participation in Christ’s priesthood – the episcopacy and the presbyterate. The deaconate is meant to serve these two orders. Therefore, the word sacerdos (priest) denotes bishops and priests. However, all three orders (the two degrees of priesthood and the degree of service) are conferred by sacramental “ordination”.
Bishops receive the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders as successors of the apostles and speak with Christ’s authority. The bishop’s mitre is a mark of this apostolic authority. The crosier, also known as the pastoral staff, is a symbol of this authority too and his jurisdiction. The bishop’s ring is a sign of his faithfulness and bond with the Church and another visible sign of his apostolic ministry. The pectoral cross is worn on the chest, usually suspended from the neck by a cord or chain. also a special indicator of position.
“Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father and the priests as the senate of God for without them one cannot speak of the Church” (St. Ignatius of Antioch).
As Anglican orders are “absolutely null and void”, it doesn’t matter too much in any event .
Most people regard the roles of ‘elder’ and ‘overseer’ as equivalent. The development of the monoepiscopate, where one person became primus inter pares did not happen until the 2nd century, at different times in different places. John Collins has done an exhaustive analysis of the use of the word diakonia in the ancient literature, and it seems to have a meaning somewhat different from ‘service’. In particular, it is related to a commissioned bearing of a message.
In addition in the late 1st century church there were recognised itinerant roles of apostle, prophet and teacher. When visiting, such a person took precedence over the local ministers in the celebration of the eucharist.
Then one might add that the early church also had other offices, which developed into the Roman minor orders. An example is the ‘lector’, who often had responsibility for the books – perhaps because they could read.
It is interesting that in Eph 4:11-12, the various ministries which are described as being gifts from Christ, do not include overseers, elders or deacons – although some, but not all, elders teach.
So, perhaps the orders of the Catholic Church are not from God but from man 😉
In the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle. Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1), even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.
The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.
Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament. A reading of Ignatius of Antioch makes this clear.
“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’”
(Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).
From an article in Catholic Answers:
The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.
They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear–except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)–the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or “presbyter.”
Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).
The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term “minister” to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as “deacon” and as “minister” in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.
In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are called presbyteroi (v. 17) and episcopoi (v. 28). Presbuteroi is used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership. Episcopoi is used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: “And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for the elders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . ‘Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.’”
In other passages it’s clear that although men called presbuteroi ruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul’s instructions: “This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).
Then there’s the Council of Nicaea I:
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them.”
(Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
‘Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament. A reading of Ignatius of Antioch makes this clear.’
Yes, that is true. It shows how quickly the early church forgot the pattern of the New Testament. As a Protestant and Reformed church, the C of E pays more attention to Scripture than to the Fathers.
That’s some statement! It also assumes there is a clear “pattern” in the New Testament – which, as outlined in HJ’s post, there really isn’t.
St. Ignatius is one the “Apostolic Fathers”, the earliest authoritative group of the Church Fathers who inform us about how the Church understood herself. St. Ignatius wrote a series of letters that have been preserved as an example of very early Christian Theology addressing ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of Bishops.
The Apostolic Fathers serve as a bridge between the apostles and the more developed church in the centuries ahead. They give us a picture of the early church that is sacramental and hierarchical.
The early Church Fathers witness to distinctly Catholic/Orthodox doctrines making it hard to claim these are “the traditions of men” and not what the apostles taught. Saint Ignatius of Antioch was active in the first century, 70 or 80 years after the death of Christ. He engaged in correspondence with St. Polycarp. When you read what he writes, you find a version of Christianity that many Protestant scholars are not comfortable with because many argue that the first form of Christianity lacked a hierarchy and an authoritative structure.
So, the claim of many is these letters are actually forgeries!
‘That’s some statement! It also assumes there is a clear “pattern” in the New Testament – which, as outlined in HJ’s post, there really isn’t.’
There is a very clear pattern, which is diverse and non-hierarchical. One notable aspect of NT patterns of ministry is that they were *always* plural, and never monarchical. The idea that they were ‘primitive’ and needed to ‘develop’ into early ‘Catholicism’ is a post-hoc rationalisation of what happened.
A more convincing interpretation is that the church quickly forgot its early patterns—hence the need for continual reformation.
To ‘Happy Jack’ :
There’s not one, single, solitary, biblical reference to your various claims, ‘Happy Jack’.
Where are Christian ‘elders’ (Gk : ‘presbuteros; Acts 20:17) = Christian ‘overseers’ or ‘bishops’ (Gk. ‘episkopous’; Acts 20:28), ever called ‘Priests’ in the New Testament, Happy Jack ?
Do you do the New Testament, or do you just do unqualified allegiance to (presumably) the mainline variant of “Roman Catholicism” (as opposed to the current forms of “Old Roman Catholicism”)?
God bless you, ‘Happy Jack”.
Pellegrino, please see above post to David B Wilson.
Yes, HJ is a Roman Catholic and accepts the teaching authority of the college of bishops and the pope. Jesus gave this authority to the apostles and they passed it on to their successors. He doesn’t subscribe to sola scriptura, it being an unscriptural ‘doctrine’.
Little wonder the CoE is in double minded confusion today as an RC mutant hybrid offshoot and its longing for a derivative of the magisterium in the guise of liberal revisionism?
I think you are lost on this site, Happy- non- clappy- Jack.
But HJ thought the CofE considered itself to be a part of the Church universal … yes/no? … striving for Christian unity; that it followed the early Church Fathers and the early Ecumenical Councils (is it the first seven?).
What’s clear is that Anglicanism really isn’t one church but is a broad coalition of several different churches holding different beliefs and without any ‘magisterium’ (teaching office).
As Father Dwight Longenecker, a former Anglican and now Catholic priest, observed:
Three Ways to Be Anglican – Or is it 300? While all the national churches that make up the Worldwide Anglican Communion are independent, they also have particular theological complexions. Depending on the churchmanship of the missionaries who went there, the different national churches might be Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical—or they may have gone liberal.
This leads us to the next bewildering aspect of Anglicanism. From the time of the Reformation there have been Anglicans who have been more Catholic in their theology and understanding of the church and there have been those who have been more Protestant. The two have always existed in an unhappy tension within the Anglican church.
(Then there’s the) “broad church,” or liberal. This third strand of Anglicanism has always been a kind of worldly, established, urbane type of religion that is at home with the powers that be and always adapts to the culture in which it finds itself.
These three forces co-exist in the Anglican church—united by nothing more than a shared baptism, a patriotic allegiance to the national church, and the need to tolerate each other. The Anglo-Catholics, the Evangelicals, and the liberals are constantly at war. Their theology, their liturgy, their politics, and their spirituality are in basic contradiction to one another.
So really, HJ should be at home here during his occasional visits.
Do you ever read the New Testament, ‘Happy Jack’ ?
Of course HJ reads the New Testament.
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith and contains all of the material one needs for theology and it is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s teaching authority to help one understand it. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong.
Catholics and Orthodox, on the other hand, recognize that the true “rule of faith”, as expressed in the Bible itself, is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Church.
Well HJ,
On a quick, tired, skim, I broadly agree with your/Longnecker’s analysis, thanks.
It is a CoE self analysis that the CoE refuses to accept, except perhaps breakaway Anglicans that subscribe to the Jerusalem Declaration.
Thanks.
Geoff, HJ would go further than Fr. Longnecker.
Two of the three groups he identified are divided themselves. There are ‘liberal’ Anglo-Catholics and ‘liberal’ evangelicals. These divisions exist within the Catholic Church too (and increasingly within the Orthodox Church) but there is a teaching authority (the Magisterium) to contain differences and eventually resolve them.
‘.. but there is a teaching authority (the Magisterium) to contain differences and eventually resolve them.’
HJ – that is a very interesting comment. Who actually decides what is authorative teaching – is it the Pope or a a group of cardinals?
If the Cof E had a similar concept do you think it would find it easier to resoeve its own internal differences?
The RC church also does not seem afraid to exert discipline on its clergy when it considers that error has crept into the church.
The RC church also does not seem afraid to exert discipline on its clergy when it considers that error has crept into the church.
That may have been the case in the past, but recently we have seen, for example, the German bishops setting up what amounts to a rival magisterium without, apparently, any comeback; and the ‘synod on synodality’ which seems like a total confused mess.
I’m having a hard time replying to comments in the proper place. It seems that once we get beyond about four levels of response, you can’t respond to specific comments any more.
A couple of new points need to be made.
First, several people have asked David to provide scriptural, New Testament support for the use of mitres. I’m sorry, but that’s not an Anglican way of discussing liturgy and ceremonial. The 39 Articles are often referenced on this site. Let me quote Article XXXIV one more time:
‘It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’ s Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
‘Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.’
Read this article carefully. It doesn’t say that ceremonies and traditions must be commanded by scripture. It says quite clearly that they are ‘ordained by man’s authority’, with the proviso that they must not be contrary to scripture. And please, don’t quote me the verse about the Pharisees loving to parade around in long robes and loving the chief seats in the synagogues. It’s not the long robes that are condemned there; it’s the attitude with which the Pharisees were wearing them.
The bishop who brought me to the Diocese of Edmonton was Victoria Matthews. Victoria was (is, thank God) a godly, prayerful, humble Anglo-Catholic bishop. She has a love for the traditions and ceremonies of the church that I don’t share, at least not to the extent that she does. She wears her cope and mitre at all the appropriate times in the service, and can swing the incense pot with the best of them.
But Victoria is the most prayerful and humble bishop I have ever known. I was on clergy retreat with her many times, and I liked to get up early to pray in the chapel. I never got there before Victoria; whenever I arrived, she was already there, sitting quietly in the corner in silent prayer. Her first question to me, when she interviewed me for my current position, was about my prayer life. When I addressed her as “Bishop Matthews”, she replied, “‘Victoria’ works just fine”. Truly, she is the opposite of a pompous person. She wears the robes of her office, but she wears them with humility, not pride.
I know several Church of England bishops (including some who are related to people on this comment thread!). They do not come across to me as pompous or prideful people. They come across as loving and dedicated servants of God. They don’t deserve the way they are being portrayed here as lovers of kingly or queenly power.
Please, let’s remember that the people we’re talking about are human beings who are trying to serve God in a church with many varying (and at times conflicting) traditions. Whatever they do, someone is going to criticise them for it.
As I said a lot earlier on this thread, personally, I don’t like mitres. But what I will remember about Victoria Matthews is not her mitre but her prayer life. If I could become half the person of prayer she is, I’ll think myself blessed.
It doesn’t say that ceremonies and traditions must be commanded by scripture. It says quite clearly that they are ‘ordained by man’s authority’, with the proviso that they must not be contrary to scripture.
Okay, but how do you respond to the point that mitres are symbolic of the (contrary to scripture) idea that bishops are ontologically different to others, that they alone are the essence and core of the Church, and only through bishops can the spirit be dispensed?
I respond by saying that I don’t see them as symbolizing any of that at all. I see them as part of the ancient liturgical uniform of bishops. Yes, they are odd, but no more odd than any clergy robes, including Geneva gowns and (God forbid) academic hoods. Or, for that matter, evangelical pastors insisting on being called ‘Doctor’ and wearing expensive suits to lead the service.
I respond by saying that I don’t see them as symbolizing any of that at all.
I’m sure you don’t. But surely you can see that some people do?
I see them as part of the ancient liturgical uniform of bishops.
They didn’t just become the ancient liturgical uniform of bishops by chance, though. They became the uniform for a reason, because they symbolised something. What was that reason, what do they symbolise, and is it contrary to scripture?
Yes, they are odd, but no more odd than any clergy robes, including Geneva gowns and (God forbid) academic hoods.
Geneva gowns and academic hoods both symbolise learning, which is what you want in a preacher. Crowns symbolise being a special sort of person, which is contrary to scripture.
Or, for that matter, evangelical pastors insisting on being called ‘Doctor’ and wearing expensive suits to lead the service.
‘Doctor’ us an academic title and if you’ve earnt it you’re entitled to be addressed by it, it’s nothing to do with the Church.
And dislike of expensive suits is one reason I push the Geneva gown.
Geneva gowns and academic hoods both symbolise learning, which is what you want in a preacher.
Academic hoods symbolize degrees, not learning. Where is your New Testament basis for saying that a degree is necessary for a clergy person?
‘Doctor’ us an academic title and if you’ve earnt it you’re entitled to be addressed by it, it’s nothing to do with the Church.
Not according to Jesus, in the same passage as the long robes and the chief seats at synagogues.
Academic hoods symbolize degrees, not learning.
And degrees are supposed to require learning, so transitively hoods symbolise learning.
Where is your New Testament basis for saying that a degree is necessary for a clergy person?
I don’t believe I ever said it was. I certainly don’t think a member of the clergy should ever wear an academic hood they haven’t earnt.
Thanks Tim, that is a lovely example. But it leads me to two questions.
1. If a person is genuinely humble, why do they where attire which communicates the opposite?
2. As you say, these ceremonies are human, and not scriptural. So why do people fiercely resist change here? If mitres don’t mean anything, why do people react with such strength to the idea that they might be dispensed with?
1. If a person is genuinely humble, why do they where attire which communicates the opposite?
This question can be applied to all clergy robes, or even the business suits many non-liturgical evangelical pastors wear, not just mitres. John Stott, I’m told, bought his suits from the Oxfam shop, but I don’t know any other evangelical pastor who followed that example. And I would ask you a counter-question: if a person is genuinely humble, why do they use the title ‘Doctor’ for themselves?
It’s really not my business to inquire into other people’s hearts. I’ve got enough struggles of my own with pride to be going along with.
So why do people fiercely resist change here?
Come on, Ian, you know the answer to that one! Most of us get comfortable with a certain way of doing things, and when we see it being changed, it upsets our equilibrium. New translations of the Lord’s Prayer, new forms of worship, guitars in church, etc. etc.
Seriously, though, maybe most people don’t see mitres as being a huge issue, because they don’t read into them the offensive symbolism that you read into them. And so they say to themselves those words which, it seems to me, so often characterize our Anglican approach to forms of worship: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
You think mitres symbolize something about modern Anglican worship that is broken. Evidently, you have not made your case to the majority of Anglicans. Most Anglicans feel as I do: maybe, if we were starting the whole thing over again from the beginning, we wouldn’t adopt mitres (or any clergy robes at all, in fact) – but we aren’t starting over again, and those of us who are working at the coal face only have so much time and energy to address vital issues, and this one doesn’ t make our ‘A’ list. Not eve close.
Seriously, though, maybe most people don’t see mitres as being a huge issue, because they don’t read into them the offensive symbolism that you read into them.
Maybe. But maybe they do read that offensive symbolism into them and they’re okay with that? Do you not see that that would be a huge problem?
maybe, if we were starting the whole thing over again from the beginning, we wouldn’t adopt mitres
This seems rather to miss the point that mitres are a recent innovation, not something the Church of England adopted at the start.
You say: ‘ “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”’ Well, were mitre-less bishops ‘broke’? If not, why did people feel the need to ‘fix it’ by bringing in mitres?
This seems rather to miss the point that mitres are a recent innovation, not something the Church of England adopted at the start.
That depends on when you think the Church of England ‘started.’ I think most Anglicans would claim it was not started in the 16th century by Henry VIII, but was ‘reformed’ at that point. I quote Wikipedia:
‘Worn by a bishop, the mitre is depicted for the first time in two miniatures of the beginning of the eleventh century. The first written mention of it is found in a Bull of Pope Leo IX in the year 1049. By 1150 the use had spread to bishops throughout the West. ‘The West, would include England.
Tim, I would say that something we managed without for 1000 years is something we can manage without…!
That depends on when you think the Church of England ‘started.’ I think most Anglicans would claim it was not started in the 16th century by Henry VIII, but was ‘reformed’ at that point.
Potato potato. Whichever term you use, there were no mitres. Mitres in the Church of England are a recent innovation, not something that was ‘there from the beginning’ and can’t be changed now.
Mitres in the Church of England are a recent innovation, not something that was ‘there from the beginning’ and can’t be changed now.
1150 AD is 873 years ago. I would not call that a recent innovation.
Tim – I’d say that 1150 AD was rather late.
Where I live, they make a big thing out of Corpus Christi. It’s a major holiday, everything closed on the Thursday. I discovered that this is something that was invented in the 13th century – and hence that it was too ‘modern’ for me with zero Scriptural justification.
I’d agree with you that people should be allowed to wear whatever they like on their heads. If the bishop (or indeed anyone else in the congregation) wears a mitre, or else may perhaps decide to have a mohawk hair do (or even uses the mitre to cover up a bad hair cut) that is fine by me. But as far as church tradition goes, I’d say that 1150 AD is rather late.
1150 AD is 873 years ago. I would not call that a recent innovation.
As others have pointed out in the context of the capital-C Church that is actually quite recent; but more to the point in the Church of England mitres are a recent innovation having only started to be worn about a hundred years ago.
Ian: “Tim, I would say that something we managed without for 1000 years is something we can manage without…!”
You mean like women priests?
We don’t need male ‘priests’. Jesus is our great high priest, and we are the priestly people of God.
Women have been teaching and leading since the New Testament, including as prophets, church planters, and apostles. The fact that the Tradition has strayed from this needed correcting.
The 39 articles themselves refer to priests (see Articles 32 and 36) and elsewhere to Ministers. Either usage would appear to be standard Anglican practice. There are scores of references to priests in the Prayer Book too.
To restrict the term to Minister is to narrow down the usage that was accepted at the time of the Reformation.
This wasn’t my point anyway. I was saying that *if* you argue change wasn’t needed because mitres weren’t worn for a thousand years, then on that principle the ordination of women might just as logically have been ruled out, because of 1000 years+ of precedent.
After all, they had priests (aka ordained ministers who administered the sacraments) at the Reformation, but they certainly didn’t accept women to those roles. But church culture can evolve and change. Wear a mitre or don’t wear a mitre – it doesn’t worry me. It is trivia in my opinion.
As it would be a symbolic shift from Anglo Catholics to Evangelicals in the Church of England if all C of E Bishops had their mitres removed.
So obviously most Anglo Catholics in the C of E, whether liberal or conservative, would resist it
“If a person is genuinely humble, why do they where attire which communicates the opposite?”
That perception is really in the eye and heart of the beholder.
That perception is really in the eye and heart of the beholder.
Yeah it’s really one of those humble crowns.
You have an issue with the authority of bishops?
Christ built his Church on the foundation of the apostles (Eph. 2:19–20). The bishops are the successors of the apostles; the authentic teachers of the apostolic faith endowed with the authority of Christ.
A bishop exercises authority in the name of Christ in his diocese and in communion with the entire Church. All the bishop’s mitre, crosier, and ring symbolise is this special authority. They have nothing to do with the personal character of the particular bishop or whether they are proud or humble men.
As St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in the early second century,
“When you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ.”
(Letter to the Trallians, 2,1).
The Church of England does not in its doctrine take that ‘essential’ view of bishops. Apostolic succession is about continuity of belief about Jesus, not about a distinct caste of leadership.
The bishops are the successors of the apostles; the authentic teachers of the apostolic faith endowed with the authority of Christ.
No they’re not. They’re people doing a particular role in the Church (a role which really should be rotated on a regular basis specifically so that nobody gets too identified with it). The authority comes from the role, not from any mystical ‘endowment’.
What you’re describing is the Roman view which is heresy, which is why the Reformers universally binned it.
Thank you Tim, for your comment: “I know several Church of England bishops (including some who are related to people on this comment thread!).”
I could post a picture of my cousin with his mitre on, and he is one of the least pompous people I know, with a truly humble heart. It is possible to just want to serve God, and if you have a mitre, to wear it lightly.
As you say, Tim, the whole issue over mitres is (I suggest) a trivial non-issue compared to matters of huge importance like poverty, refugees, abuse, and safeguarding. It’s a kind of confected drama, a tribal marker, but tells us little about the inner heart of a man or woman, and their devotion to serving others.
It is possible to just want to serve God, and if you have a mitre, to wear it lightly.
But then why not just not wear it at all? Given that what it signifies is contrary to scripture, if you really treat it ‘lightly’ wouldn’t it be better to just not wear they thing?
And if your reaction to that is ‘ah yes I mean I really myself don’t care but but I have to keep wearing it because X and Y and Z’ then you don’t really treat it lightly at all, do you? Your revealed preference is that you actually think it’s important.
One last thing. Ian accused me of contradicting myself; on the one hand, I claim that the issue of mitres isn’t important, but on the other hand, I have commented on this thread, not on the Bible study threads!
I quoted Gordon Fee’s comment about the circumcision question in the early church and its relevance for our controveries today; he said, “It’s not an issue unless you make it an issue, and then that becomes the issue.”
Ian, that’s the issue I’m commenting on. I could care less whether or not bishops wear mitres (I’m happy to leave that to their sense of what’s appropriate in any given situation); but it bothers me that you are making it an issue. Honestly, with all the things going on in the church right now, you choose to pick a fight over this subject? That’s what I find hard to understand.
Honestly, with all the things going on in the church right now, you choose to pick a fight over this subject?
Presumably because if there’s one thing that the Church of England’s history teaches us, it’s that if you aren’t vigilant in keeping out heresy, it embeds itself, grows like a cancer, and becomes more and more difficult to dig out without killing the host?
The Church doesn’t have the luxury of saying, ‘Let’s not bother about this little heresy, with all the other things going on’.
The Church doesn’t have the luxury of saying, ‘Let’s not bother about this little heresy, with all the other things going on’.
Honestly, if you think that the wearing of a mitre is a heresy, I have nothing more to say.
Honestly, if you think that the wearing of a mitre is a heresy, I have nothing more to say.
Not the wearing of the mitre per se, but the Roman ‘ontological priesthood’ idea which it symbolises. That’s certainly heretical, which us why the Reformers universally binned it.
Thanks Tim. I publish about three articles a week here, which adds up to about 150 a year, or 1,500 over ten years.
I have commented on this issue three times in total. Out of 1,500. What is odd is the idea that I am ‘picking a fight’ on this issue ‘when there are more important things to be addressing.’
I think you will find I am addressing them in the other 1,497 articles…!
I stand corrected about your sense of proportion. I do, however, question why you felt the need to republish this old article at this particular time.
Sense of proportion, Tim? You are gracious as always. This re-post all began with Ian’s ‘strong impression’ there are more mitres around these days. Evidence? Ian had noticed the annual photos of ordinations doing the rounds ‘were full of mitres’. But they always are Ian (one or two, that is). The ordinands are pictured with their bishops. But this impression is the basis for this portentous question – ‘Could it be that the wearing of mitres is a last grasp at a power and authority that is ebbing away?’
Well if you start where this blog starts you might end up where it ends up. But I didn’t. So I don’t.
Yes, Tim has the grace to acknowledge that his claim was wrong. Are you willing to do the same?
It is a shame that you continue to take cheap shots rather than engaging with the substance. I have invited you to offer a rationale for mitres that sits well with C of E doctrine. I am still waiting!
On the cultural issue, do see David Shepherd’s helpful comment below.
Ian I was the one who suggested you might think of inviting others with different views to a shared blog discussion. I really look forward to it.
David, you are very welcome to invite any Anglo-Catholic to comment, and a number do.
But I would really be interested in either an evangelical or even an Anglican rationale from you. You appear to think they are a good thing.
Can you say why?
I was the one who suggested you might think of inviting others with different views to a shared blog discussion
Why is an invitation necessary? The comments section is open to all. They could respond here. As could you but you apparently won’t.
There are many ridiculous things about this discussion but one is that most of the commenters wanting to abolish mitres are not even members of the CofE.
Ian is well aware that the place for discussion about this would be General Synod. If he is serious about the matter, then he is free to initiate a Private Members Motion and see how far it gets. I suspect it would not even get the required number of signatures to make it to the agenda, let alone survive a debate. But if he believes differently I am happy to be proved wrong. He knows how to get the process started.
The repeated efforts to treat mitres as a trivial and harmless vestige of tradition represent a false dichotomy.
Those who do so don’t appear to be able to join the dots between institutionalised emblems of authority encouraging a ‘culture of deference’ towards institutional authority and safeguarding failures.
It’s staggering that some still live in an ecclesiastical ‘echo-chamber’ which is incapable of discerning a relationship between the post-modern distaste for such assertions of the Church’s episcopal authority and the widespread disenchantment with the Church that has resulted in numerical decline.
For so many CofE members to hold such an atomised view of church issues (e.g., emblems of a priestly caste representing privileged moral status that those without it are not allowed to question; privileged moral status being used to justify a lack of transparency and resulting in safeguarding risks; public avoidance of such risks resulting in numerical decline) explains why they remain unresolved.
These issues will never be resolved until they are addressed holistically.
Thanks David—such a helpful summary of the issues.
“These issues will never be resolved until they are addressed holistically.”
I think that is absolutely key.
I am sure that those who wish to reject mitres actually want to reject all liturgical dress. Those discussions fall along the lines of Free Church/Established Church. That’s where the discussion needs to remain. We are witnessing a strand in the CofE that wants to reject the Parish system and any of the connection to traditional Church.
Abusers tend to be privileged leaders. They don’t all wear mitres. Some wear lounge suits or chinos or colourful shirts.
Abusers tend to be privileged leaders
No they don’t. Abusers can be anyone. They’re no more likely to be a privileged leader than anyone else.
Are comments being moderated now?
I tried re-posting it, and again it said ‘awaiting moderation’. Maybe it was an automated response to the number of words? I have no idea. If my reply to Father Dexter is not accepted, I will post the same comment on Thinking Anglicans, but really, I hope this site allows me to respond. It always has before, and the ISB issue (not raised by me, and you commented on it yourself) is very serious and important. Please have the courage to engage. I’ve respected your willingness to accept differing views from people before. If we are followers of Jesus Christ, we should not be afraid of truth and open discussion. It has been one strength of your site, to be fair.
Maybe it was an automated response to the number of words?
I obviously haven’t seen the comment, but anything with more than one URL in it seems to be held for manual moderation to reduce automated spam, and this has been the case for ever. Were there two links in it?
Yes. Thanks for that clarification -very helpful. I’ll wait to see if I’m ‘cancelled’ or not!
Comments are automatically moderated when they include more than one link.
And I am not going to approve it anyway, since a. it is very long b. it is on another subject and c. you are making accusations based on ignorance.
That is your right as host of this site.
Indeed it is.
While David Runcorn cited scripture and symbolism and Tim has cited the Arts, it is suggested that taken as a whole it can represent the collectives of Bishops assuming a role of the Magisterium a role not granted to them in the CoE or Anglicanism in general.
And that returns us to scripture as cited by David R along with scripture so far as it relates to authoritative teaching/doctrine.
Tim makes reference to Gordon Fee as authoritative teaching, but would that extend to his teaching on Holy Spirit to be enfolded into Anglican Magisterium? Symbolism, scripture, authority, arts, all wrapped up into the unfolding picture of the Bishopric ultra viries tenacious assumption, bit by bit, by stealth even, of the role of Magisterium.
BTW Tim.
It has been mentioned in the comments that is a time of ordination ceremonies, a time when mitres seem to take on some attention grabbing visual prominence.
It would seem to me that been the catalyst for the timing of the article.
Tim makes reference to Gordon Fee as authoritative teaching, but would that extend to his teaching on Holy Spirit to be enfolded into Anglican Magisterium>/i>
Hi Geoff, my quoting of Gordon Fee has nothing to do with any authority he may or may not have as regards some sort of Anglican magisterium (I had no idea such a thing existed, or where it might be located).
You have misunderstood my quote. I respect Gordon highly as a New Testament scholar, sand I thought the quote I gave was a good summary of Paul’s view on the circumcision/uncircumcision issue in Galatians. I was not implying that Gordon Fee had any official authority in Anglicanism. That’s it. Please don’t read it as any more than that.
I’m off to a busy day in my ‘day job’. Blessings and peace to you all.
There is a simply astonishing assertion made above by Jock that “liberals” are angry about the safeguarding catastrophe that was the destruction of the ISB. Whilst “conservatives” are not angry about it.
This is utter nonsense made much much worse by what Jock presumably thinks is a rather clever remark placing child abuse and internet trolling in the same bracket.
If you are not outraged by the safeguarding horror that is the Church of England then you are not a Christian.
The idea that the issue divides along liberal/conservative lines is shocking beyond measure.
The comments on this site become more of a scandal with each week that passes
Thanks Peter. I don’t think there is any need to resort to the language of ‘scandal’. If he is wrong, then say so. That is enough.
I am sorry Ian, that will not do
Conservatives are less exercised by safeguarding failure than liberals ??
You are, a believe, on the CEEC Board.
How can you not see it as a scandal for us to be defamed in such a serious and outrageous way.
The people who are making these comments are quite obviously not even believers.
They need and should have prayer, grace and the Gospel. They do not need affirmation of their opinions.
They do not need affirmation of their opinions.
So point out they are wrong, with arguments and evidence.
You continue to labour under the conceit that you decide the rules of discussion.
Andrew Godsall has pointed out that you and others clearly have no understanding of safeguarding.
Your own description above of “the safeguarding industry” as “arse-covering” is one of most deplorable comments on this site.
You are in no position to decide what does or does not amount to a valid statement on the subject.
Peter is correct. Dismay about the Archbishops’ Council’s actions cuts across ‘liberal’ / ‘conservative’ divides. Harm to abuse victims is harm to abuse victims.
I have tried to present reasons why many people are dismayed… offered here but posted there: https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/isb-controversy-episode-7/#comment-460779
Anyone here can go and engage with it there. As Christians we should seek truth and true information, and be willing to engage, and answer questions, and not shy away from answering them.
Even some members of the Council itself believe the appointment of the new Chair of the ISB was the ‘wrong decision’ and that they ‘messed up’ and should be held to account. Peter is absolutely right to call out the Archbishops’ Council.
You continue to labour under the conceit that you decide the rules of discussion.
No, the host sets the rules, and I don’t always agree with them. In just give my opinion and back it up with arguments.
Your own description above of “the safeguarding industry” as “arse-covering” is one of most deplorable comments on this site.
It’s true though. The main reason any organisation enacts safeguarding policies is to protect itself from being sued. It’s naïve to think otherwise.
Hopefully as a side-effect they also do some good.
You are in no position to decide what does or does not amount to a valid statement on the subject.
Neither are you. We both put forward our points, with supporting arguments, and leave readers to decide which of us made the better case. That is hoe debate works and how we get closer to the truth.
If you are not outraged by the safeguarding horror that is the Church of England then you are not a Christian.
The fact that someone doesn’t think a particular solution was working does not mean they think that there isn’t a problem.
There is a really profound level of ignorance on this site about the very basics of safeguarding.
If nothing else, that does make sense of a truly reprehensible set of comments on another thread on this site.
If you are ignorant that is clearly not your fault.
When your ignorance is pointed out to you, if you respond with pride and disdain you are then culpable.
Can you find a less emotive way of expressing your view?
I need to be candid with you. We all find ourselves in bad company from time to time. More often when we are young. Yet it can still happen even at the stage of life you and I have reached.
You and I are both conservatives. I am speaking to you as one who respects and admires you as a leader of orthodoxy.
You have found yourself in bad company on this site. Please distance yourself from these men.
How can we possibly say we must differentiate ourselves from men such as David Runcorn and Andrew Godsall – – and then turn and associate with the sort of people you have on this site.
It is an ethical nonsense that does our convictions great harm.
It grieves me deeply to part from Runcorn and Godsall – as we surely will.
If that must happen, we cannot be indifferent to the company we keep.
and then turn and associate with the sort of people you have on this site.
If you man me, then the host and I are not associated in any way. We have never met. As far as I am aware the host doesn’t even know who I am.
Peter, maybe cool it? I know you are a passionate person, and you’re quite right to feel passionately on this subject… but maybe make more points on the Thinking Anglicans ISB threads? Your views and mine are miles apart on lots of things, but we are both quite in the loop when it comes to this particular crisis. As a conservative Christian your comments add voice to the fact that this is causing deep concern across theological divides. Ian, I wish you would comment there too and engage. As truth seekers, we should not be avoiding discourse, questions, clarifications. Although the Archbishops’ Council did seem to act very abruptly, where they could have waited a few weeks and consulted with General Synod. That would have been less autocratic. But to both of you, I would appeal: ‘Come. Engage. Speak Truth.’ And anyone else here who has deep concerns about safeguarding in the Church of England.
Psephizo is a really valuable and important site. It has been and continues to be a source of accessible and theologically orthodox material.
Ian Paul is the only leader of Anglican orthodoxy who heads towards the sound of gunfire. We need him to stay wise.
I’m not being emotional. I want Ian Paul and Psephizo to prosper. That’s the reason for comments.
If he decides I am a liability I would immediately stop commenting on the site.
I do agree on the value of this site, because I frequently find the bible studies very good. I may be called a ‘liberal’ by some, but the Bible is still immensely precious to me, and the level of detail and linking of themes, terms etc across multiple passages is very good.
Personally, if it was my site (which it never will be!) I would seriously review the comments policy here, because I think the below the line section demeans and debases the standing of the Bible Studies and Ian’s gifts, by association. Like you, I am only here as long as Ian lets me be (obviously) – nor would I want to be here if unwelcome.
As for you, Peter – I think you *are* emotional… and passionate… and I warm to you for that. At times you are a breath of fresh air. Jesus is so amazing. Our faith *should* be emotional. And we should be emotional about justice and decency too.
That said, there are times to be temperate too (and I’ve seen that in you). One thing I like is that, while you are forthright about what you believe, you also try to reach out to others. I’ve seen you do that on the other site.
Susannah, as ever you have a warm heart and a generous spirit
Peter
Ian has a genuine dilemma which has to be recognised. He is perfectly entitled to run a publishing site and he does so very effectively. If he wants to allow comments that is entirely conventional.
The fact that ignorant and unpleasant comments are then made is hardly unusual. We do not castigate the Times or the Telegraph because their comments sections are a cesspit of malice and stupidity.
The reason why Ian is under the spotlight and his site is being criticised – and let’s be real, he and it are the subject of criticism – is because there is enormous public concern and anger at the Archbishops Council on which Ian sits.
Perhaps the anger will pass. I for one, do not want to see a fine theologian such Ian Paul damaged.
Yet, there is a conflict between being a public theologian and church senior bureaucrat that cannot be avoided
The fact that ignorant and unpleasant comments are then made is hardly unusual.
I still find it bizarre that what I did to generate this level of animus was to ‘defame God’ by, um, disagreeing politely with the poster over a point of constitutional law (which I was right about, but that’s by the by).
S. It’s not all about you.
It’s not all about you.
Tear my heart in two, why don’t you, darling.
S (following Monte Python) – just as well you didn’t tell him about the dirty knife.
Isn’t this disagreement about mitres really a disagreement between evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings of Anglicanism about the nature of the ‘ordained’ priesthood alongside the priesthood of all believers, and about the place of ‘ritualism’ and vestments?
Anglicanism is presented by some as reformed Catholicism striking a balance between the extremes of Rome and Geneva; by others as Protestant and reformed. From HJ’s point of view, the roots of Anglicanism are solidly Protestant and claims that Anglo-Catholicism is a genuine Anglican tradition just does not stand up. From this perspective, mitres and vestments, as well as the rituals and ceremonies within the Church of England. are out of place – and, yes, mitres should go given they are symbols of a view of Anglicanism that is inconsistent with its origins.
So why not just state this instead of alleging its symbolic of the pride and power of certain individuals. Really, it’s to do with opposing views of the church.
Anglo-Catholics forget the Cranmerian reform was militantly anti-sacerdotal. Altars were removed and replaced by wooden tables. The English Reformation was iconoclastic and until the nineteenth century English Protestantism balked even at the image of the cross , never mind the crucifix. Cranmer formulated a rite of ordination that lost the apostolic succession for Anglicanism although it retained the titles of bishop, priest, and deacon.
For three hundred years in the Anglican church there was no pretence at the Mass. There were no prayers for the dead, let alone requiem Masses, and the sacrament of unction of the sick was missing. Reservation of the sacrament was never practiced, and Anglicans were taught not to seek the intercession of the saints. The communion service was infrequently celebrated, and communicants were few. Confession was deemed not to be a sacrament of the gospel and was not encouraged (though the private confession of sins was allowed for), and it fell into general disuse.
Things are different today and various individual churches have a variety of different approaches. One can “shop around” to find a church which suits ones tastes and also one’s theology concerning women ‘priests, homosexuality, divorce, abortion, etc., etc,
The modern resemblance between Catholicism and some sections of Anglicanism derives from the fact that the churches of the Anglican communion were influenced by a ritualist movement in the nineteenth century growing out of the Oxford movement. This movement considered the Catholic Church a visible body upon earth, bound together by a spiritual but absolute unity, though divided into national and other sections. This conception drew with it the sense of unbroken connection between the primitive Church and the Church of England. This movement valued the idea of continuity with the past and began to accept a view of the apostolic succession never accepted by reformed Anglicanism.
The ritualistic aspects of Catholic liturgical practice that for centuries had been unknown in the Church of England reappeared. The eucharistic vestments, most particularly the chasuble, were brought back, as were lighted candles and prayers for the dead. Anglican bishops wore mitres for the first time.
What’s overlooked by Anglo-Catholic is that true Catholicism is not about adherence to types of ritual or specific vestments – these can and do change – but fundamentally is acceptance of the successor of Peter as pope and head of the Church on earth; that being in communion with him will guarantee the security of an indefectible faith and genuine sacraments.
The roots of Anglicanism are solidly Protestant, and claims that Anglo-Catholicism is a genuine Anglican tradition does not stand up. Anglo-Catholicism is essentially an aberration within Anglicanism.
Maybe this is the debate Anglicans need to be holding ….
What rubbish, Henry VIII himself created the Church of England to be an essentially Catholic church just with him as its head not the Pope.
The Eucharist is a key part of the Book of Common Prayer, the distinct Anglican prayer book and the Church of England has always had Bishops like Roman Catholics. It has never been an evangelical church without Bishops like the Baptists or Presbyterians.
The Church of England remains a Catholic but reformed church with some evangelicals in it, not an evangelical reformed church with some Anglo Catholics in it
The only time the C of E did not have Bishops was in the republic of Oliver Cromwell, who when he also abolished the BCP effectively turned it closer to a Baptist or Presbyterian than Anglican church until the Restoration of King Charles II
Yes, T1 ;
But have you actually read the BCP’s replacement :
the ” Directory of Publique Worship”.
If not, you’re in for a treat. it’s available online at archive[dot]org
The Directory was based on John Knox’s Book of Common Order, a Presbyterian not Anglican prayer book yes
So you’ve read it, them, T1 ?
Now be fair – were you surprisingly impressed ?
No. I am an Anglican not a Presbyterian. I am high church and like the ceremony of the communion Mass and prayers for the King
I am high church and like the ceremony of the communion Mass and prayers for the King
We know, you like the ceremony and not the Christianity. English State Shinto is what you want.
Henry VIII himself created the Church of England
Henry VIII didn’t create the Church of England. Cranmer did.
Henry was Supreme Governor of it, not Cramner.
Henry was Supreme Governor of it, not Cramner.
Henry VIII didn’t create the Church of England. Cranmer did.
In 1534, the Act of Supremacy defined the right of Henry VIII to be Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England.
It was after his death that Cranmer et al set about creating the Protestant Church of England.
Yes so as I said Henry VIII created the Church of England with him as its head rather than the Pope. Cramner moved it in a Protestant direction under Edward VI, Catholic Mary Tudor completely reversed that and had Cramner burnt at the stake for treason and heresy.
The Elizabethan settlement of the Church of England was then a mixture of Catholic and Cramner Protestant reformed. Today’s Church of England model ultimately set out in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer after the restoration of Charles II
That’s the debate Anglicans have to hold. However, history indicates something quite different.
HJ has given you the Catholic perspective. One cannot state: “Henry VIII himself created the Church of England to be an essentially Catholic church just with him as its head not the Pope” and remain in communion with the Catholic Church? As stated, this means accepting the successor of Peter as pope and head of the Church on earth and accepting the dogmatic and doctrinal teachings of the Magisterium.
Besides, it was after Henry VIII death that the reformation (revolution) kicked-in big style with Cranmer’s anti-sacerdotal changes.
As the Catholic encyclopaedia says:
Although the policy of Henry VIII, after the breach with Rome, was ostensibly conservative, and his ideal seemed to be the maintenance of a Catholic Church in England, minus the Pope, it is incontestable that in other ways his action was in fatal contradiction to his professions. By raising to power, and by maintaining in positions of unique influence, his three great agents, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer, and Edward Seymour, all of whom were always, and as openly as they dared, in sympathy with the Reformation, Henry VIII, whether by intention or by the indifference of his latter days, undoubtedly prepared the way and opened the gates to the Protestantism which came in under Edward and Elizabeth.
Is the Eucharist a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary with His real body and blood wholly present under the appearance of bread and wine with the priest acting as the “person of Christ”? This is Catholic and Orthodox belief. Is there an ontological change in the recipient following his reception of the sacrament of ordination? This is Catholic and Orthodox belief.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear:
Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church “have not preserved the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of holy orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible.”
I never said the Church of England was fully Catholic or Orthodox, however it is not fully Protestant either. It is a mix of the 2, a Catholic but also Protestant and Reformed Church. Hence that also enables it to be a genuine church for the whole of England, both those in the Catholic and Protestant evangelical traditions of Christianity can find a place in it
I agree with T1 on this. It is demonstratively true that both catholic and protestant elements persist in the life of the church and the faith of its diverse believers. The pendulum swing this way and that during the Tudor and Stuart period, but it’s obvious and clear that the Church of England has far more residual catholicism (small c) than stricter protestant groups. Moreover the whole culture of society, and expressions in church life, reflect that. People are often called to the ‘altar’, people are always referring to ‘priests’ (and the 39 Articles and BCP refer to ‘priests’ as well).
The Church of England has evolved as a Broad Church, which accommodates multiple expressions and convictions. That’s simply a fact. And through its history since the 1530s there has always been tension in that co-habitation of diverse consciences, and yet there has also – in parish life up and down the country – also been grace, as people sought to work together, even with some differing views.
To me, the history of Anglicanism has not been about rigidity but about tolerance of diversity, placing the emphasis not on just literal dogma, but on LOVE and grace for others.
What’s happening in parts of the Global South and in some ‘conservative’ churches in England is that they are losing that key aspect of Anglicanism, because they don’t ‘get’ it… they want to control and tighten up everyone in rigid dogma.
I don’t think that’s the way God has ordained for the Church of England. I believe God prefers to challenge us to co-exist, to love one another (with our differences), and to rely more on God, less on our controlling instincts to make everybody conform.
There is huge grace that has been at work in the Church of England over the years. Catholicism was not just ejected, in the hearts and instincts of worshippers and many priests.
The Church of England is not a narrow protestant sect.
‘To me, the history of Anglicanism has not been about rigidity but about tolerance of diversity, placing the emphasis not on just literal dogma, but on LOVE and grace for others.’
I am afraid that historical facts don’t support your view here. How much do you know about the history of the C of E? The Act of Uniformity, the non-jurors dispute, the exclusion of Catholics from accession, the exclusion of non-conformist from public life, the 1927/8 Prayer Book crisis—and today, the non-acceptance of non-paedobaptists all point to a consistent intolerance of those who don’t accept Anglican doctrine.
You might lament this, but you cannot claim that this is not key to the C of E.
We are ‘broad’ now only because bishops have not had the courage to discipline, and it has led to an inherent contradiction, where those who are responsible for upholding the doctrine of the Church don’t believe it.
That is not sustainable, and we are reaching breaking point where this is being tested to destruction.
(It is also damaging to mission: no-one would accept a Ford salesman commending people buying VWs. If CofE ministers don’t believe CofE doctrine, people think that is bonkers, even if they think CofE doctrine is wrong. It lacks any integrity.)
To me, the history of Anglicanism has not been about rigidity but about tolerance of diversity, placing the emphasis not on just literal dogma, but on LOVE and grace for others.
What’s happening in parts of the Global South and in some ‘conservative’ churches in England is that they are losing that key aspect of Anglicanism, because they don’t ‘get’ it… they want to control and tighten up everyone in rigid dogma.
You don’t like rigid dogma. Got it.
I don’t think that’s the way God has ordained for the Church of England. I believe God prefers to challenge us to co-exist, to love one another (with our differences), and to rely more on God, less on our controlling instincts to make everybody conform.
‘God prefers to challenge us to co-exist’ is a rigid dismissing statement.
But I thought you didn’t like rigid dogma!
Please to explain contradiction.
It couldn’t be that you only like rigid dogma when it’s right dogma you agree with could it?
a rigid dismissing statement.
Read: ‘a rigid dogmatic statement’
Well said Susannah, I agree entirely with everything you wrote
C of E doctrine is believe in the authority of its Bishops on one hand and Synod and the Book of Common Prayer and its articles on the other. Plus the authority of the King as its Supreme Governor. Nothing else beyond that is uniquely Anglican but is found in evangelical or Catholic churches of other denominations.
Your misguided attempt to follow Oliver Cromwell and turn the Church of England into a Presbyterian or Baptist church without any Catholic elements will not wash with us Anglo Catholics I am afraid. It is our church too and we will never surrender it! As for doctrine, you seem fine with remarriage of divorcees in church even where no adultery involved which Jesus opposed but not fine with a mere blessing, not a marriage, of homosexual couples which Jesus never opposed
C of E doctrine is believe in the authority of its Bishops on one hand and Synod and the Book of Common Prayer and its articles on the other
Who wrote the Book of Common Prayer?
Who wrote the articles?
Do you believe in the articles? All of them?
HJ you are quite right. The doctrine of the C of E is *not* the same as either Catholic or Orthodox, and those here who claim so are in error.
The reason for that is because we believe these traditions are themsevles in discontinuity with Scripture and the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.
For us, this has a higher authority than the later Catholic tradition. This is what it means for us to be part of the ‘one catholic and *apostolic* church.’ Cranmer and other Reformers were at pains to stress their continuity with the early church, with the Catholic tradition had lost.
“[W]e believe these traditions (Catholic or Orthodox) are themsevles in discontinuity with Scripture and the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.”
Personally, HJ considers modern day “Anglicanism” to be a hotchpotch of competing and contradictory beliefs and theologies heading towards collapse. He prays for those faithful Christians members facing difficult choices about the church they love as they witness it being overwhelmed by earthly forces.
As scripture says: “But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
HJ It is a bit odd to refer to yourself in the third person, and often makes it unclear who you are talking about.
‘Happy Jack’ :
Are you implying sir, that Anglicanism may need a proper Reformation ?
Hmmm … it certainly needs to sort it beliefs out. HJ’s “suggestion” would be somewhat more radical though.
‘Anglicanism is presented by some as reformed Catholicism striking a balance between the extremes of Rome and Geneva; by others as Protestant and reformed.’
There is simply no doubt that it is Protestant and Reformed. Just read the Articles. Or listen again to the Coronation Service, where precisely this phrase was used.
As written> “From HJ’s point of view, the roots of Anglicanism are solidly Protestant and claims that Anglo-Catholicism is a genuine Anglican tradition just do not stand up. Anglo-Catholicism is essentially an aberration within Anglicanism.”
Sorry—yes, we agree.
In the context of a Mass!
Indeed – not a “Mass” though!
Much of the Coronation ceremony was Catholic/Orthodox in content, notwithstanding the oath.
King Charles III: Protestant or Byzantine Emperor-Priest?
https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2023/05/08/king-charles-iii-protestant-or-byzantine-emperor-priest/
Well,
Who knew, Peter? Your intergtors’s light on this site is as s result of Ian role on the Archbishop’s Council? And it is only for ignorant Times and Telegraph readers. Grauniad readers are exempted.
I know almost nothing about what has happened on the AC.
But as a former solicitor and separately as an independant advocate for secondary mental health service user, and Local Authority safeguarding trained as part of foster care training I find some of your comments are without balance and are jaundiced as a result.
All clergy, all CoE staff, I’d say have a fiduciary duty of care (and that includes doctrine) towards others ( eg the golden rule) and, sad to say, so far as safeguarding is concerned, should consider themselves as “vulnerable adults” in some circumstances with children. Any adverarial system and protocols would include rules of natural justice.
I’m afraid I am genuinely unable to understand the point you are making, insofar as it relates to my comment.
You do, to be fair, illustrate another challenge for this site.
It is hardly unreasonable for Church of England people to treat this site with concern. This site was recently directly referenced by the leading evangelical body in the country as one of only three sites they specifically were encouraged to visit. Its owner sits at the top table of the Church of England.
It’s an open access site and therefore people such as yourself who know little or nothing of the current crisis across the Church of England will also comment.
That makes for a potentially difficult mix at the best of times and these are not the best of times.
Peter,
You assume far too much, people such as me! Dismissed with a high-handed waft! You know nothing of me save as I’ve disclosed.
People such as you, don’t understand a great deal about wider questions of safeguarding. Do you not really understand, nor desire understanding.
Are you really saying you know nothing about fiduciary duty of care, such as standing in loco parentis, nothing about duty of care, of the Golden rule.
And so far as I can recall there have not been any articles on this site that have been specifically on the question of safeguarding.
I’ve been reading articles on this site for five or more years and commenting. If asked to, by Ian I’d stop.
While, I’ve not done a count, as Susannah did above, if comments would be constrained to the points made in the articles and their general import there would be far fewer.
And most comments seem to be comments on comments. If they were barred this would be a quieter place.
Nearly as quiet as comments on the scripture articles, where there is a noticeable absence of comments from the usual suspects that advocate revision and heterodoxy, where one raised their head with a comment along the lines of whether Jesus really said that, and another attributing miracles and the supernatural in the Gospels to being solely metaphors.
There are other Christian sites and blogs that don’t have any comments at all. That would be my preference.
When I was in South Wales we held dedicated mornings in Llandaff Cathedral for each Year Six from our church schools, exploring the cathedral, climbing the tower, creating a prayer tree for the children’s particular petitions etc. The class had completed work sheets beforehand on the role and qualities of a bishop, and elected a boy and girl from their class who best reflected those qualities.
I would explain as best I could the historical significance of the robes a bishop wore, as well as my own take on them, which got me through each day. For instance when I put on an alb, Latin for white, I prayed for purity as I led any act of worship – cue Philippians 4:8. A stole was obviously like a scarf, and I prayed that I would be warmed by prayer, raising the idea that we don’t so much do prayer, but that prayer actually finds us – cue Romans 8:26. We had great fun with the crook, with the children pretending to be lost lambs bleating here and there and me the good(ish) shepherd coming to their rescue.
You couldn’t really avoid the mitre, since every bishop’s tomb in the cathedral featured one, but I talked about Christ being the only one to wear a crown, with the mitre, definitely not a crown, pointing away from me to Him, from whom all ministry derived. I explained that a bishop had to make many difficult decisions, and sometimes all that might go to his head and make him think what a very important person he was. When that happened, I only had to look in the mirror with the mitre on my head and realise what a total idiot I actually was!
We then vested the elected girl and boy in bishop’s robes, which was a very holy moment, when you could hear a pin drop: the boys were usually highly embarrassed – hardly helping their street cred – the girls totally looked the part.
Very interesting…though of course suggesting that bishops’ robes are girlish…?!
Fair point – I suppose episcopal garb is the ultimate in cross-dressing! Also Year Six girls tended to have more poise and presence than Year Six boys – if you want your bishops to have poise and presence.
We took the event on tour to St Alban’s Cathedral, where a lovely Roman Catholic primary school from North London sneaked in under the radar. Their Q & A session was pure Father Ted: ‘How many Masses have you celebrated? What was your shortest Mass? What was your most difficult Mass? What was your favourite Mass?’ Despite their Church not having women priests let alone women bishops, they didn’t bat an eyelid when we dressed their elected girl as a bishop.
I’ve staged the event in assemblies when visiting schools, but rather than pick on a pupil, have vested the head teacher as a bishop. To see the most powerful person in the school divested and transformed into another role really grabs pupils’ attention. At one school in Cardiff there was a head on exchange from Kenya. Back home, his break was regularly interrupted to sort out altercations in the playground – when a lion or elephant wandered in. When a rhino wandered in, everyone ran. When I vested him (in my late father’s robes) he kept thanking me with tears in his eyes, that someone so unworthy should be so honoured. It would be good if all bishops had tears in their eyes…
‘I suppose episcopal garb is the ultimate in cross-dressing! Also Year Six girls tended to have more poise and presence than Year Six boys – if you want your bishops to have poise and presence.’
I don’t think I do. Outward form becomes a substitute for inward reality.
And the main group the C of E is missing is working class men. Robes do not do it for them.
“And the main group the C of E is missing is working class men. Robes do not do it for them.”
This is by no means correct. The Orthodox Churches and Roman Catholic Church have no problem attracting working class men. And their use of robes is considerable.
‘The Orthodox Churches and Roman Catholic Church have no problem attracting working class men. And their use of robes is considerable.’
In the contemporary RC, the services are much ‘lower’ than in C of E Anglo-Catholic churches, ironically.
The 29thC AC movement attracted lots of working class men.
And the RC church of my Lancashire childhood was largely working class – Irish immigrants and recusant survivors.
I don’t think working class men identify with blue shirts and beige chinos 🙂
19thC !
PCD: “I don’t think working class men identify with blue shirts and beige chinos…”
Oh my goodness… you are going to slay me one day… please give me your priest’s address so I can send him my commiserations
I don’t think working class men identify with blue shirts
They famously do. Blue shirts have blue collars.
But more to the point what attracts someone is not necessary what they identify with.
“In the contemporary RC, the services are much ‘lower’ than in C of E Anglo-Catholic churches, ironically.”
But they still use vestments and their bishops still wear mitres. And there is a great variety of styles of worship as there is in the CofE. But it’s always the mass and has always attracted working class men.
Excuse me, Penelope –
Just to finally confirm :
Are we going backwards in Time, or forward. 🙂 🙂
Susannah
Her address:-)
Oh dear PCD,
That’s such a waste of your talents…
Geoff.
You told me you know little or nothing about the AC. That is what you told me !
You then accuse me of assuming too much. All I have done is take you at your word.
There no basis at all for your insinuation that I know nothing at all about safeguarding.
You said you didn’t understand my comment in its totality, “genuinely unable to understand the point you are making”.
Again you write:
“… People such as yourself who know little or nothing of the current crisis across the CoE will also comment”.
You assume far too much; even while I have no detailed knowledge of what recently happened in the AC. I am aware of much of the rest of the crisis, though I don’t have an inside track that others seem to have.
Also, I have never said nor insinuated you know nothing about safeguarding. But you have stated you do not understand my points relating to safeguarding that are not confined to the CoE.
Your reading and understanding is less than careful, quoting out of context, verging on callow, it seems to me. I’m wasting no more of my time with you, on these exchanges, thanks.
“HJ It is a bit odd to refer to yourself in the third person, and often makes it unclear who you are talking about.”
HJ has used illeism online for several years now. It’s way to pause before commenting to avoid becoming involved in personal, contentious arguments. So far it has been generally successful.
As Wiki says:
Psychological studies show that thinking and speaking of oneself in the third person increases wisdom and has a positive effect on one’s mental state because an individual who does so is more intellectually humble, more capable of empathy and understanding the perspectives of others, and is able to distance emotionally from one’s own problems.
HJ recommends it to others. Here’s a good article on its use:
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20230411-illeism-the-ancient-trick-to-help-you-think-more-wisely
You should give it a go.
Psychological studies show that
Any time you hear the words ‘psychological studies show that’ remember that what follows it’s almost certainly false: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/replication-crisis
Well, HJ is a trained psychologist and almost certainly false is a huge exaggeration. Besides, illeism has a long tradition predating modern science. It’s an ancient rhetorical method. The small change in perspective from “I” to “he” causes one to clear emotional fog and to see past ego and biases.
Did you know it occurs frequently in the Bible and is used by Yahweh in the Old Testament and by Jesus in the Gospels?
So HJ says: give it a try and see for yourself …
Well, HJ is a trained psychologist and almost certainly false is a huge exaggeration
Oh sure. There’s two types of findings from psychological studies: the true-but-trivial and the amazing-but-false. But nobody ever bothers to mention (or publish) the former, so if anybody is bothering to tell you about it, it’s almost certainly in the latter category.
Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go and pull a power pose while doing my affirmations.
“Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go and pull a power pose while doing my affirmations.”
Happy Jack trusts that this the full extent of your knowledge of psychology. Or are you one of those “bible believing” Christians who shun psychology as being fundamentally opposed to Christian belief? Or, then again, perhaps you just like to aggravate folk with cheap throw-away lines.
Who knows?
Or, then again, perhaps you just like to aggravate folk with cheap throw-away lines.
Yes, obviously that, but also I want to encourage everybody to treat all claims with skepticism.
A true sceptic (note spelling) is well informed
It’s more how they behave rather than what they wear that is making them look ridiculous.
Am I alone in thinking that discussing bishops’ mitres at a time when the C of E is proposing to turn its back on God’s teaching over thousands of years feels like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic?
Could it be that I am not a priest (let alone a bishop or archbishop) or even a Licensed Lay Minister / Reader that this whole topic seems to epitomise all that’s wrong with a Church that has forgotten its core beliefs and the need for a personal relationship with the One that some of my Jewish friends call ‘King of the Universe’?
Man-crushes based on the perception of another man’s personal power –within all sorts of businesses and organizations– are a real thing, a real temptation, and a dangerous snare. The projected pomp and authority creates a power-gap. It should not be so among us.
True. But it seems to have been taken up by the women with enthusiasm too!
Oh, absolutely! But it is more shameful to see men do this. We women depend on men to be more circumspect and even healthily skeptical of another man. But there’s something about systems that makes men (and some women) want to build a hierarchy and hang all sorts of things on the scaffold of the Church, instead of building a family of God. That is the only legacy worth having, worth supporting, worth dying for.