Sean Cathie has just written an important Grove booklet on The Clergy’s Experience of Pastoral Care in the Grove Pastoral series. I have become acutely aware of the importance of this issue from travelling and speaking to clergy, and from my work on General Synod and the Archbishops’ Council. One of the factors has been the erosion of the clergy stipend and pension over the last ten years, under pressure from inflation and deficit diocesan budgets, which is why I put a motion to Synod last February to have these restored. But finance is not the only issue, and Sean’s booklet explores the whole range of factors. I reproduce here his first chapter, which offers a diagnosis of the problem. Successive chapters in the booklet explore:
- The Weakness of Current Provision;
- Understanding the Stress of Ministry;
- The Clergy’s Experience of Pastoral Care;
- Embodying the Church’s Essential Task; and
- Speaking the Church’s Essential Task.
Acknowledging the Reality of Clergy Stress
‘The hardest work I’ve ever done, and the most stressful, was as a parish priest—mainly because it was isolated, insatiably demanding and I was on the whole working without close colleagues—and that wears people down.’ With these words, Archbishop Justin opened a milestone debate in General Synod in July 2017. Having the Archbishop of Canterbury testify to the reality of the stress of ministry was a significant and powerful moment in the life of the Church. Especially as he had previously worked in the ‘real world’ as an executive with an oil company and this had included negotiating with terrorists which, he had warned his wife, could lead to his death. For him to open that debate with that personal testimony had great significance for parish clergy. It gave the stress of ministry a recognition that it had not had before. More formal recognition was later given when General Synod adopted the Covenant on Clergy Care and Well-being. Since then dioceses have been responding to the Covenant and the practice of reflective practice groups and the importance of self-care have entered into the language of clergy well-being.
However, the ongoing Living Ministry research stress remain and the surveys that The Times and the Unite union conducted in 2023 suggest that significant levels of stress remain. This is underlined by recent work on why ordinand numbers have fallen 38% since 2020. Staff involved at diocesan and training level identified clergy well-being as the first most influential factor. In addition, a well-informed account of distrust within the Church, Trust and Trustworthiness within the Church of England, has recently enlarged our understanding of the sources of distrust within the Church. Whilst its concern is with the Church as a whole, it is highly relevant to the issue of the stress of ministry and the need to think systemically about it. I shall reference it when appropriate. It demonstrates why we need to think outside the box of the counselling model and consider the question raised by Dr Liz Graveling when she presented one report on the Living Ministry research. How, she asked, can the kindness of individual pastoral relationships be translated into our organizational life?
The Trust report is an invaluable guide to thinking about this question. It reinforces the argument for organizational ways of responding to the stress of ministry with its account of the grave ill-being of the institution of the Church. It is a valuable resource for understanding the sources of clergy ill-being and its account of the spirituality of trust is vital for enabling more effective pastoral care throughout the Church and for addressing the spiritual needs of those outside the Church. In short, exploring the stress of ministry in relation to the spirituality of trust leads us to a deeper understanding of the task and opportunities for ministry in our time. However, whilst this book aims to be comprehensive in scope, it is not possible to be so in detail.
Travelling Through the Landscape of Ministry
I undertook my research into The Clergy’s Experience of Pastoral Care using an interdisciplinary approach. Three complementary concerns provided the organizing focus. These were first, the clergy’s experience of pastoral care, secondly, the stress of ministry and, thirdly, the Church’s own practice of pastoral care. This last point of the triangle answers the need for a distinctively Christian or a theological and spiritual response. This is distilled as the essential task that I shall present in the last two chapters. To explore these concerns, I drew on theology, sociology and social applications of psychoanalysis to provide a multidimensional view of clergy well-being.
The Ecology of Pastoral Care
Taking this journey through the landscape of ministry reveals the ecology of pastoral care. Grounded in the community and worshipping life of the Church, at its best such an ecology ‘enables people and communities to love God and each other better.’ The significance of this is brought out by one theologian reflecting on his experience of the L’Arche communities. Here ‘helpers and handicapped are tested to their limits, and it is clear that for gentleness to survive it has to be sustained by a whole ecology of beliefs, practices and supports.’ Because caring activities need much more than the specific skills, such as counselling and reflective practice, that enable the many activities which teach people and communities to love God and each other better. Ranging as they do from choirs to youth clubs and more, this comment reminds us that, for these activities to retain their pastoral character, they need an ecology that weaves the relationships and activities together with beliefs and practices. In human society, this is what the term ‘culture’ describes.
Like the natural environment, the life and culture of the Church has suffered from disruptions of many kinds. To focus on clergy well-being, without considering these, screens out the effects of these disruptions of the Church’s social, cultural and relational ecology. In other words, to promote clergy well-being requires that we take account of beliefs and practices that undergird and direct pastoral care. To understand clergy ill-being, we need to take account not only of the Church’s damaged social ecology but also of how this is true of the world beyond the Church, the wider society in which we live. For without question, that is exhibiting many signs of stress and strain, too. One of the most telling symptoms is the failure to reform the provision of social care and the neglect of mental health services, especially for young people, to name just some. Care as a principle seems to have a very low priority.
This changed and damaged ecology, I suggest, is the context and generator of the stresses of ministry today. For the Church and its ministers, it is linked to the decline of worshipping members and the increase of those who self-identify as having no religion. This widening gap between Christian believers and the rest of society is a significant challenge and raises big questions. The links between church and society no longer work as supportively as they once did. There is, then, a social and systemic dimension to the stress of min- istry, reflecting the social and cultural context in which ministry is exercised. There is also the context of the Church itself as organization.
The first insight from an ecological perspective is that the phenomenon and experience of clergy stress is more accurately described as the stress of ministry. This takes our focus from the individual to the occupation and its setting. This change of emphasis is vital for a more accurate understanding of what undermines clergy well-being. It identifies the significant factor as ‘the what not the who.’ Naming the occupational sources of stress is what Archbishop Justin did in his speech. This frees those who experience it from its associations of personal weakness and failure and directs our gaze to those shared sources of stress in the work which affect everyone in ministryand, in truth, everyone of faith. This dignifies the clergy’s experience with a more accurate identification and discourages the tendency to scapegoat those showing symptoms of such stress.
The Questions this Raises
The widening gap between Christian believers and the rest of society raises big questions and strains the resources of the Church on many fronts, from maintaining the parish system to speaking persuasively and credibly to non-believers. These pressures affect the Church as a whole and we may also guess that their effect on our senior clergy is as great, if not greater, as on frontline clergy. The Trust report suggests these are also sources of the distrust. Understanding them in relation to the stress of ministry, then, matters.
In particular, two strategic issues can be discerned behind the symptoms of the stress of ministry. The first is a question of meaning: ‘What is the Church for?’ This lurks behind the fact that modern society sees no need for it and that current provision for the clergy is failing. The second is an organizational issue. When a significant proportion of clergy are overcome by the pressures and unable to minister well, this is a terrible waste of clergy talent. There is both a missional and a pastoral imperative for developing more effective provision. Doing so has the potential to improve the Church’s effectiveness more widely. Seeing the stress of ministry as the symptom that we need to understand opens up this more comprehensive perspective. This is a version of systems thinking which focuses on the relationship and connections between different parts of the system, such as between frontline clergy and senior clergy or between the Church and society. Identifying these vulnerable interconnections is what the Trust report does and indicates how interventions at such points could address the pervasive distrust and resulting poor organizational functioning. The key for doing this is in that principle of pastoral care of fac- ing both ways, here between, say, the centre and the frontline, and between the pastoral and the managerial.
Insights for Pastoral Care of Ecclesial Communities
Furthermore, learning about the pastoral care of the clergy yields valuable insights for the pastoral care of congregations. But, you may ask, can the pastoral care of clergy really be relevant to that of congregations? Their experiences and roles are so different. They are and they are not. First, the benefit of starting with the clergy’s experience is that what is needed pastorally, but is missing in practice, is identified from the clergy’s own experience and so is made visible. If we can address that fruitfully, then the lessons learned will be applicable to the pastoral care of congregations. Secondly, both pastoral care of the clergy and of congregations suffers from the blinkering dominance of the secular counselling model of one-to-one support. The more comprehensive and ecological framework of pastoral care in the Christian tradition, that I have sketched here, can widen our vision and enable us to respond more ef- fectively to clergy ill-being, repair the distrust and renew pastoral care within congregations too.
The booklet continues by analysing the causes of the current crisis, exploring the stresses of ministry, and clergy experience of pastoral care, before calling for action to deal with the issue. You can buy the booklet from the Grove website here, for £4.95 post-free in the UK.
Sean Cathie worked in parish ministry for ten years. He subsequently retrained as a psychotherapist and continued to be involved in parish life. He later studied for a Masters in Group Analysis at Birkbeck College and a professional doctorate in Theology and Ministry at King’s College, London. He previously wrote about this issue in the Church Times. The factors here will apply to other denominations, though the focus in this study is the Church of England.
Interesting.
Society values “success” and there are many ways of seeing, measuring and celebrating this.
But the Church is, generally speaking, not a “success” whichever way one looks at it, in worldly terms. (And there are always exceptions to the rule…)
Parish statistics show that most parishes are failing, if one looks at the only thing that can be measured (usual Sunday attendance, occasional offices etc) and I think that this does have an effect on clergy morale.
And the Church is not good at talking about failure, except to create ever more resources, courses and advertising campaigns.
As I look towards the end of my own ministry, in worldly terms, it has been a failure. The church is not in better shape than it was when I was licensed. Lay people are disinterested in assisting with the administrative tasks (GDPR compliance, H&S, taking effective PCC minutes…) and so I am having to do what I was never licensed for and am quite frankly not very good at, in addition to trying to do the things for which I was licensed in a society which doesn’t care for them.
Trying to convince people that pastoral visiting is better done by people working in pairs for all sorts of reasons falls on ears which cannot hear.
And the organisation has lost that group of “early-retired” people on whom it was relying, because early retirement on a reasonable pension is no longer possible, because those people are squashed between caring for elderly parents and looking after their grandchildren. The church should be supporting them to do these things with love and grace, rather than burdening them with expectations of doing ever more for the organisation…
Twenty years ago, I had between 35 – 40 funeral services a year, mostly for people for whom my church was “their” parish church which they attended for Christmas, Easter and the occasional Christening. “Lovely funeral, Vicar” and bereavement visiting by our very excellent Reader did not translate these pastoral contacts into worshipping numbers, but they were important points of care. Now, that lovely Reader is dead, and I have been asked to take 15 funerals so far this year.
One of my churches is really struggling. In secular terms, it is a failure, and would have been closed years ago. But the very small congregation do not want to lose their church, and are doing their best. But it will have to close in the medium term, because eventually the money will run out, and there is no help coming from anywhere.
I did not enter ministry to close churches but to see them grow and thrive. By everything that can be measured and celebrated, I am a failure.
When was the last time any senior member of staff sat down with me over a cup of coffee and really listened to this? I think you know the answer. No one ever has.
I’m not surprised that clergy well-being, mental health etc is at a low ebb.
Thanks for sharing your honest reflections. There is a real issue here in relation to diocesan leadership—though I would note that in my diocese it is good.
But it is also the hard truth that other churches are growing even as C of E ones are declining. We need to reflect on why that is…
Well the “simple” answer to that which some people would make is that the churches that are growing take a very clear view on issues of human sexuality. (And note that I did not use Title Case for those words, because I think it is a much wider issue than that.)
I’m not sure that is the whole answer, though.
I wonder if the other churches which are growing (and there are other denominations which are not growing…it isn’t a unique C of E problem) are doing so because there are fewer of them? So they have a wider area to minister to and from which potential converts will come? I would also like to know what their ministry team structure is? And what their financial foundations are? Because I think that all of these do have an impact, but I’d like to know with more clarity.
The C of E is heroically struggling with all the urban church plants born in the Victorian era, when they were built because they were “not like the one down the road” or they were for the servants of the posh people who went to the church up the hill?
I think it is a much more complex and nuanced issue than some of us might want it to appear.
Though the structure we have for those urban church plants isn’t necessarily the structure the Victorians themselves had. In my old home town, the oldest church is known as “the” Parish because the 5 other Anglican churches in the town were all Victorian plants that at the time were all kept together as a single parish under the rector who then had 7 curates under him. Nowadays they’re all completely separate, and some are really struggling.
“Well the “simple” answer to that which some people would make is that the churches that are growing take a very clear view on issues of human sexuality.”
Thank you Elaine for this and for your very moving posts on this topic.
I think the answer you identify as simple is actually simplistic – and you are probably being kind by not using that word.
I can name three examples off the top of my head where a conservative evangelical Priest who takes a clear orthodox line on issues in human sexuality has been imposed on a Parish which has had a quite different tradition. The net result has not been growth but an emptying of the pews. And in each case the clergy don’t admit any stress but simply insist they are right and that if people don’t like the truth then the door is open. None of the churches have grown.
I’m sure this pattern is repeated all over the place. The CofE is in very serious demise and has been for the last several decades. This has nothing to do with liberalism. And whilst some conservative and hard line churches are growing that is by no means true of all. And if all it took was that to grow the church then there is enough of that kind of Christian religion around in this country to ensure that the church should be growing exponentially and it just is not doing so. That is not the answer.
Three things attract new believers to churches. One is holiness. One is sufficient humanity to be grounded. And one is humility. All that adds up to enough integrity and a lack of hypocrisy. It’s simply being Christlike. Those things are necessary in leaders and people alike. And there is not enough of that to grow the church. And there is enough of the opposite of all of that to cause its demise. Nothing to do with attitudes to same sex relationships or women in ministry or any other cause over which we have become so fixated over the last decades.
And of course the safeguarding scandal is because of a lack of holiness, a lack of true humanity and a lack of humility. And they add up to a complete lack of integrity and a very hypocritical organisation. And that empties churches. And causes clergy stress.
I think the CofE is unsustainable in its present form. We need a root and branch reorganisation. And if we don’t face that now the CofE will be gone within 50 years or less. The stuff we have been fighting about on here is a side show. It’s much easier to fight about that than face the huge questions that we continue to avoid.
It is implausible that thriving churches are thriving because of their stance on ‘human sexuality’. Our failure to get our heads (and our prayers!) around secularism is astonishing.
My own Diocese has recently indulged itself in a fantasy – it calls a ‘Strategy’ for growth. For example, there’s an ambition to ‘grow’ the diocese with (can’t remember the exact figure) 64k new disciples within such-and-such a time frame. The obvious questions – Why that number? What if we manage only 50k? Or 54? – seem not to have crossed the minds of the folk who drew up this silliness. Perhaps what’s worse is that this thrashing around in the pools of dreamland will have a lamentable touch on clergy well-being, not to mention parishioners’ dashed expectations.
“It is implausible that thriving churches are thriving because of their stance on ‘human sexuality’. “
I’m really glad to read that. It is so true.
“Our failure to get our heads (and our prayers!) around secularism is astonishing.”
I think I’d want to enquire what is meant by secularism. The whole point of the incarnation is that the secular can be sacred. I think so many clergy on retirement fail to take up PtO because they discover that they can be better witnesses outside of any formal structures.
Andrew, the idea that ‘the secular is sacred’ is a strange form of liberalism, and fails to attend at all to the language of ‘the world’ in the Fourth Gospel, or the apocalyptic nature of the kingdom of God. These are pretty central ideas in the NT.
Elaine, you are right that the question of human sexuality is not the whole answer. You can teach the words of Jesus, and be unwelcoming and unfriendly, and your church will not grow!
But there is a strong correlation, at a denominational level, I think because Jesus said we needed to abide in him to be fruitful, and that abiding in him means abiding in his teaching and obeying his commandments.
They aren’t except for a few exceptions, every denomination in England is in decline except for Pentecostal and a few independent evangelical churches and the Orthodox church. Yet they are all starting from a low base.
Globally sadly Christianity is in relative decline across the western world, the hope is its growth is coming in Africa and parts of Latin America and South Asia and China (the latter largely underground).
In terms of the C of E though it has more than enough assets and investment income to support Parish ministry if it did not spend as much funds on the latest fashionable scheme
Why are you treating western decline as the headline and the global south as the mitigating factor when the numbers involved in the global south are far larger than those in the west? The global south should be the headline and the west the footnote, surely?
I suspect those in the south would look at it from a southern perspective, regardless of numbers. We all speak from where we live.
Speak from where we live? Real Christians are strangers and sojourners in this world. Christopher is right.
Simon T1 ‘They aren’t except for a few exceptions, every denomination in England is in decline’
This is simply not true. You appear to be in denial of reality in order to support your position.
This is a fascinating article. Thanks. Is ordination training part of the problem with its recent emphasis on church growth and success, and with many ordinands coming from very large (often university town) congregations who then encounter the realities of parish life? Are people prepared for the sheer hard work of year-in year-out parish life? Also I wonder if ‘The widening gap between Christian believers and the rest of society’ is in part a result of the emphasis on gathered congregations where deep and personal commitment is emphasised. One sign of this may be the growing number of parishes which seem to steer people who are not obviously committed Christians away from infant baptism towards services of blessing by stating that the former is for ‘real’ believers. The older parish approach often had a large but rather vague ‘fringe’ who attended very occasionally e.g. baptisms, Christingle. Of course that fringe has now dwindled in many places but we may have hastened it by emphasising that clearly articulated, deeply committed faith as what is required rather than many shadesof belief. The rural church, in my experience, often has a much better approach to these dynamics than gathered urban congregations as it usually works as a part of the local community (everyone is in) rather than being a separated community of believers (you’re in if you believe what we believe). That may be why strongly catholic or strongly evangelical clergy seem much less likely to be found in rural parishes. But in the end it’s tough these days to be a parish priest and it was good to see the Archbishop’s recognition of that at the start of the article.
Good points, in our rural churches our ancient C of E churches include Catholics and Evangelicals of all theological persuasions not least as no other denomination has a church in the area. All perform infant baptism too as all C of E churches must, believers adult baptism only is a Baptist or Pentecostal not an Anglican practice
Thanks for your response. That was exactly my experience in a rural parish – we welcomed all comers from whatever church background (or none) and sought to weave a life together that would help us to discover God’s presence. It was hard work, but I doubt it was harder than other people’s day jobs nor do I think I worked longer hours than others. I had no choice about who I would baptise or marry (so long as they qualified) or burying anyone who died in the parish. It’s a privilege to be in the established church, not a burden or a drag on mission and we should grab the opportunities it gives with both hands as a given part of the pastoral task. If we don’t want to fulfil the role of the established church other denominations are available for us to join, but terms and conditions apply apply in every church.
Indeed, as established church we have a duty to serve everyone in the community
We are principally to serve them by proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.
As established church the Church of England is also obliged to provide weddings, funerals and baptisms for all local parishioners who want one. Yes it offers communion each week and a sermon and bible reading but if you want evangelism on the high street the C of E is not for you, it is not the Baptist church or a Pentecostal church which do do that
Ian – yes – with a view to bringing them to faith (John 3:16). Serving those who have already come to faith is an important, but secondary matter, since Scripture tells us that those who are ‘in Him’ have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us as a built-in ‘Counsellor’ (if you like) – at which point 1 John 2:27 kicks in.
As I indicated, I didn’t see (in the piece) an outline of the ‘job description’, from which we could understand the points at which it causes stress (I have my own ideas – but they weren’t stated in the piece) and hence what sort of support might relieve the stress.
Peter gave a great example – someone in distress who shows every sign of seeking the Lord – and what he is doing about it – exactly what the church should be doing (and sharing the burden with someone in distress is never easy). Other than that – I didn’t see much on this thread that deals either with putting the subject of ‘Clergy Well-being’ into the context of what the clergy should be doing (being instrumental in bringing people to believing in Him), let alone a discussion of measures that might help relieve the stress when it gets too much.
Simon ‘if you want evangelism on the high street the C of E is not for you’
Ah, so Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 28 is for some reason not for Anglicans? Could you explain why that is? Or 1 Peter 3.15?
Tim, “terms and conditions apply in every church” – how true! But re “it’s a privilege to be in the established church, not a burden or a drag on mission” – from the point of view of an unordained person, I can’t agree. When I was “in” the established church, every time I walked through my nearest cathedral city, and saw that huge spire, my spirits sank. “Am I *responsible* for all this?” I wondered – my heart’s answer was “God forbid!” And “can I persuade anyone that treating this gigantic edifice as a *resource* will enhance their lives?” – actually, no.
The BCP has an explicit service for “The Ministration of Baptism to Such as are of Riper Years – and able to asnwer for themselves.” Thus it is not true that adult baptism is not Anglican. That it is not often practiced is an indication of the lack of drawing in of adults into the Church. Any church which finds itself not baptizing adults should ask why it is not doing so,
As the C of E is not a Baptist or Pentecostal church, it believes primarily in infant not adult baptism. Article 27 ‘The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.’
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion#XXVII
A misreading of the article.
The article affirms infant baptism
It’s to be kept
But it is not privileged as the norm above adult baptism
Thanks for commenting. It is nice to have some new voices…!!
‘All perform infant baptism too as all C of E churches must, believers adult baptism only is a Baptist or Pentecostal not an Anglican practice’ Simon T1, this is not true.
The theology of infant baptism in the C of E is predicated on belief, but belief that must be articulated by the baptisand on their behalf if they are unable to articulate it for themselves.
Ultimately, the church is a Voluntary Organisation.
Not sure that the CoE, views itself in that way.
For anyone to volunteer they subscribe to the main driving purposes, knowing what they are, led by those of a synoptic view.
In the CoE it seems that there is a disconnect, an ever widening chasm, between wjat has been initially and well descibed by Welby ad he then was and who he is now, and his dominant drivers. Roots and fruits.
From someone who has been employed in the voluntary sector, as a generalisation, they can do a better job at what they engage in with a devotion and fervour, than would the church invovled in the same sector.
To use a crude, secular phrase, the Church (CoE at large) has foregone its USP.
What is needed is more funds going to Parish level to support both clergy and congregations. In many areas, especially rural areas clergy still play a vital role in the community too and that needs to be recognised.
In bigger churches in cities and suburbs and large towns clergy could also get more curates, lay preachers and deacons to help with workload
On what grounds should we subside ministry in areas where the gospel is not being shared, churches are shrinking, and there is no teaching on giving?
OK – could someone give a concrete example of a ‘pastoral care’ situation – a situation, and what involvement someone in the clergy is supposed to do in that situation and the sort of outcome that is expected as a result of involvement by clergy (which would not have been the case without the intervention).
For those who are members of the clergy, the article probably resonates – for those of us who aren’t, it is too ‘abstract’.
If you’re asking what the big issues are for ministerial wellbeing: in Chelmsford we recently did a consultation on this, and the top five were
A) relationships – well-being was associated with healthy team relationships BOTH within the parish/benefice (with churchwardens, lay ministers, etc etc) AND with peers.
B) health (spiritual, physical, financial, intellectual…). Bored, exhausted ministers worried about finance, who don’t pray, are not likely to thrive.
C) Justice (ministers told us that certain things just weren’t fair)
D) Vocation (a sense that people were doing what God called them to do). In this respect it’s interesting to note that poor wellbeing seemed to be associated with phrases like “ I have to do so much volunteer management” and good wellbeing was associated with such phrases as “I love helping people identify their gifts and thrive in putting them into practice” or “I love sharing ministry with others”. The tasks described might well be the same tasks, seen differently. Coaching often helps people identify what they’re called to do, and live accordingly (which may well include learning to say no).
E) Questions of HR and review processes
If you’re asking about the bigger cultural issues, I summarise it like this: it is exhausting for ministers to live in a target-culture where they are or feel responsible for “success” and are driven to meet the wants of religious consumers, but it’s refreshing to live in a faithfulness-culture where ministers are encouraged to do what they are called to do, help others thrive in their own callings, not do for others what they can do for themselves, and be faithful.
I hope these examples help to make it a little bit less abstract.
Thanks, Andy, this is really helpful, especially your comment that ‘The tasks described might well be the same tasks, seen differently.’ My level of stress and satisfaction was massively affected by my frame of mind at the time. I wonder if aiming for ‘success’ is a good idea. Ann Morisy talks of approaching ministry ‘obliquely’ rather than with direct targets in mind. Didn’t someone once say, seek first God’s kingdom?
If you are a member of the CofE…
“For those who are members of the clergy, the article probably resonates – for those of us who aren’t, it is too ‘abstract’.”
… and this is “too abstract” then are you part of the problem?
Just asking for a friend. 😉
Ian – as you know, I’m not involved with the C. of E. at all – so I’m not part of any problem that you might have (unless you think that my non-involvement is part of the problem) – and I’m probably unacquainted with your ‘friend’.
I’m trying to figure out what the C. of E. clergy think they should be doing, where ‘pastoral care’ enters into it, what ‘pastoral care’ is – and what aspect of it is stressful.
I once heard someone say (not a C. of E. man) that half of the ‘pastoral problems’ he encountered were caused by the pulpit and the other half were solved by the pulpit (i.e. the message that was preached from the pulpit) and I’m wondering how this fits in with the article.
When people say; “Our minister is awful…” 0
God (might say) “Well, look at the crowd I can choose from…”
(No theological undergirding should be assumed)
Ian Hobbs – ah ha – then putting your reply into the context of the article and the discussion, you think that clergy are under pressure because of critical people who (a) attend church and (b) don’t like it and say ‘our minister is awful …’ – because they don’t like either his preaching or the prayers or the hymns or some other aspect.
You’re not exactly saying that the critics are wrong about this, but you’re suggesting that instead of carping from the side lines they should have been putting themselves forward for the ministry.
You may well be right about this.
For the record – if I were to consider this, it certainly wouldn’t be with the Anglicans. I have a problem with their fancy dress, their hierarchy, very importantly about the fact that they practise infant baptism – that sort of thing. My mother has a Salvation Army background (where they don’t bother with baptism or the bread-and-wine communion ceremony at all), the principles that a person has been brought up with often stick (as is the case with me) – and Salvation Army of the 1940’s and 50’s would be much more my sort of style. Approximately 25 years ago I strongly considered the ministry, but making a shrewd assessment of where my own talents lay (and did not lie) I decided that I wasn’t cut out for it. (I’m also not one of those who goes along – and then carps from the sidelines about how awful the minister is).
If this is indeed the source of the problem for clergy (proclaiming The Word in the teeth of hostility from those listening) then they have my respect – whatever their views on fancy dress, hierarchy, baptism, communion, etc. …. Have you experienced this in your own ministry?
Hi Jock.
An example: a lady in our small village recently lost her only grandson after a battle with long covid. The parents are divorced and her son is struggling.
She took to sitting in the church every day. I met with her and listened and prayed with her, and have done every few weeks since, on her request. Occasionally, on her prompting, I have talked about the Christian faith, about love and hope and salvation.
There is no outcome expected – the Holy Spirit will do what the Holy Spirit will do.
She did say that she can’t come to church as she works Sunday’s, even though she doesn’t need to, but has now said that she will be giving up that work after Christmas and will then be coming to church. She will hear the Good News of Jesus Christ preached there and we will see what the Holy Spirit might do, with her and perhaps her son.
Hello Peter,
This sounds extremely encouraging – and I pray every blessing on your ministry. I’d say that if discussions about the Christian faith are on her prompting, then the Holy Spirit is working in a positive way (through you).
It’s a lesson to us all – as Christians we should be there – ready and willing.
This also fits right in with the article and gives a good example of pastoral care (which can be stressful when you share the burden with the other person). It also fits in with an earlier thread – illustrating the importance of keeping small village churches going.
Peter – actually, the discussion on this thread would probably be better if we started with this example. The woman was in distress, started coming to church every day – and then instigated the conversations with you about the Christian faith – you were there to talk to her.
From this concrete example – which illustrates exactly what the church should be doing – what sort of resources are needed? (obviously – the church needs to be open for a start) what sort of support do you think would be useful for those on the ‘front line’ (like yourself) who engage with the Word?
I think that starting from concrete situations (like the one you outline) and working from there is much more likely to yield meaningful discussions and a positive outcome.
Thank you for sharing this – I have just ordered the booklet as it would be good to read the whole thing.
I recognise much of what J Elaine Evans describes above, particularly the administrative load that clergy often have to bear. Indeed, I’m sitting here now messing about on the internet because I’m stuck at my desk wading through a pile of stuff and need a breather! But I have been told that “there is no money” for any administrative support, which I find hard to believe when the diocese is always ready to provide “additional resource” to the HTB plant down the road.
Which brings me to a question: do clergy in different parts of the C of E experience different levels of well-being? Many parish clergy I know are exhausted and overstretched, yet clergy in church plants seem to be a picture of contentment. I recognise that picture may be false, but given that those plants have resources and staff to support them, it’s hard to believe that they are struggling like so many others are. Has anyone explored this? If nothing else, the question of how resources are deployed feeds into the lack of trust that is described in this piece.
Again this is an emphasis on clergy, with no comparison with the involvement energy and commitment of volunteers, laity. Is there a comparison to be made in that regard with the new HTB plant.
While not having any connection with HTB, it has been calculated that it takes the involvement of 75 to host our Sunday morning service. And we have since stretched beyond a pilot evening service to a now embedded separate service with different scriptures. Phew.
I have every sympathy for clergy expected to do work they are not adept at ( eg on- line covid times) but that is far from exclusive to clergy as it applies in all walks of work today.
And I’m aware that new church plants need to be funded by those with the vision for growth, in some instances it is part of the plan that they become self-funding in, say, 5 years, but that may depend on the economic demographics of the catchment areas.
How long do we fund oversees missionary work?
Church plants should be funded by HTB direct or be run by volunteers. They should not receive a penny from funds which would otherwise go to Parishes but be ultimately yes fully self funding
Why? Where does this ‘should’ come from?
And how about self-funding parishes? How long does it take? To reverse free-fall?
We have more youngsters than the whole diocese.
It should come from donations from the congregations they should have built up to support themselves. I don’t care if you have a million youngsters in one church plant you are still outside the C of E’s Parish system and you can get them to pay to support you.
The Church of England is the established church built up on its network of Parishes so Parishes should not just be self funding but funded from the C of E’s investments and rental income too. Church plants however should be entirely self supported.
simon T1: ‘It should come from donations from the congregations they should have built up to support themselves.’
Why shouldn’t then that also apply to all rural parishes?
Yes, it is usually the case that church plants are expected to become self-financing within a period of time. I don’t know how many do. Locally, we are told that the church plant is now a “net contributor to the diocese” which I suspect hides the fact that on-going subsidy is coming from national sources.
75? Is that a typo?
No.
Yes my comments are full of typos but that isn’t one of them.
Do you have a really large choir or have I misunderstood what you’re counting to host a service? Just working it out at my church, I reckon we have 7 people (and we have to ‘construct’ the church in the hall every Sunday).
Well said. Which headteacher is trained in managing a multi-facility building which may need millions spent on it? Which GP was prepared properly for the current situation they find themselves in including managing large staff teams, contracts with local providers, the private sector, etc, etc? They have to turn their hands to aspects of the job which may not be their forte (yet). Clergy are not in a unique position but they are privileged to work with committed and faithful members of the congregation (including lay ministers and self-supporting clergy) and have the example of people who devote time, energy, money and prayer. It never failed to inspire me in parish life and we should constantly be thankful to God for the people we are given. Bonhoeffer’s marvellous ‘Life Together’ includes this sentence: A pastor should not complain about his congregation, certainly never to other people, but also not to God.’ Can’t say I always took his advice, but I think it’s wise.
Right at the start of the original article came the word ‘isolation’ and that is arguably the big problem – a single isolated clergyperson thought of as almost a different level of person to the ‘laity’. And this is not the biblical pattern but rather goes back to the c4th century ‘establishment’ of the church in the Roman Empire.
In the NT there is not so sharp a ‘clergy/laity’ distinction, nor are clergy often outsiders parachuted in from elsewhere. NT chuurches are run by ‘presbyters/elders’ who are home-grown, chosen out of the congregation in which they minister; simply by being plural they are nowhere near so stretched or stressed. And as they age, move away or die, there will be replacements again from the local church – not having so sharp a division means that others are encouraged to develop their gifts.
And so on….. The CofE needs to break out of the worldly version of ministry which owed more to the pagan priest anyway, and return to the NT pattern of ministry.
Stephen,
My knowledge of the Brethen is minimal, it has been a little increased by chats with a new congregant who has much experience there.
As I understand it, they have no paid staff, but live in a quite self defined community or group of people. I still unsure how they get training in reliable orthodoxy and approval/appointment to preach/teach.
And if for example you were on holiday and wished to visit a local meeting a letter of recommendation would be needed. It seems to me that it is far too inward looking, led by the most prominent and influential families, inner circles.
I would never have been converted through that system of church, church governance.
Geoff
Funny I didn’t mention the Brethren (though I have in the past). The eldership pattern of ministry is used way beyond the Brethren. And the way it doesn’t isolate ‘clergy’ from laity is a considerable advantage in terms of both less stress on the leaders and the availability of pastoral support to the leaders. ‘Elders’ generally each have a number of individual members and families who they support pastorally, rather than the whole load being focussed on one person.
The Brethren do come in more than one ‘flavour’ – most of my experience is with the ‘Open’ variety.
I remembered Stephen, even in my dotage. It seemed to to be a significant formative model in your thinking against establishment.
The death of my unchurched dad and the service conducted by an evangelical local CoE minister was instrumental to my adult conversion as a then midult unchurched atheist solicitor. But one early conclusion as a Christian was that there is no scriptural support for establishment.
But, and this is a big. But – God works in and through believers of any Christian
governance systems in his salvation purpose.
Personally, and I don’t have to make this decision, as Christians are to come under spiritual authority, I could not remain under apostate authority in any denomination, notwithstanding, what our host describes as present day ‘golden handcuffs’ for incumbents.
I am aware of one graduate of a CoE evangelical training seminary who for the reasons I mentioned has decided not to pursue stipendiary ordination in the CoE. He is a gifted believing, married young man with 4 young children who has avoided the cuffs.
Thanks Geoff Actually my thinking about establishment developed quite slowly and initially was less about scripture than being in a politically liberal family that was pretty clear that religion was meant to be voluntary. My early Christian experience was in “Crusaders”, an interdenominational evangelical youth organisation, and as a CS Lewis fan I liked his idea of “Mere Christianity” ( or “Deep Church” ), the Christian common ground. Three years involvement in the also interdenominational university Christian Union, I sit pretty loose to denominations….
Agree that God works through all Christians – but also think we should try to get things right….
In the end I looked really seriously at the whole “establishment/ Christian country” thing when the Northern Ireland ‘Troubles’ kicked off while I was at uni, and I realised that the religious conflict there was almost entirely about the church/state relations thing.
To my surprise I found that there is effectively zero scriptural support for establishment and similar ideas, but rather under the new covenant a whole different way for church and state to be related. In broad terms this is that we are not to superficially Christianise worldly nations; rather the Church itself is God’s holy nation on earth, and we are to call people out of ‘the world’ into that holy nation.
In terms of this thread, the problem of ‘establishment’ is that church and state are confused and the established church finds itself attempting to serve two masters, under pressure to conform to the world.
But what if most people were Christian? They would vote for establishment (for Christianity to be culturally mainstream) anyway.
Isn’t that what we want? If not, why not?
Are you wanting there always to be a non Christian majority? These are precious people. And you WANT them to be nonChristian?
The point is that this is not a hypothetical. There have been cultures where most are Christian.
These should be consigned to a neutral polity (impossible) or to a secular one?? Why secular in particular? Sounds like defeating the object since secular means antiChristian much of the time.
V puzzled.
FD,
Why don’t you press for a detailed financial answer? Otherwise it is management speak by avoiding the question with generalisations. You are a ‘stakeholder’ with a vested interest.
Tim,
Some main illustrations from experience.
1 I worked for the voluntary sector, with volunteers.
2 I then worked in the NHS managing 3 geographically based volunteers teams from their own locallities. The enthusiasm and commitment of the volunteers was humbling, with so many ideas, after some training, it was sometimes difficult to keep up. Facilitating rather than managing might be a better way of putting it. The teams received national recognition. It was something of a challenge at times was to keep them within boundaries.
But the biggest challenge was to get the professionals to accept and work with volunteers, even learn from them.
3 One important and key difference was in metrics, what and how to measure defining and centering on ‘outcomes’ rather than the usual ‘outputs’.
In a church context perhaps giving in it many and various forms, could be a start, a measure of the spiritual health and spread.
4. The volunteers had a high commitment. It was a matter of life and death
to them . They wanted life for others where their lives had been substantially touched by death, of friends, family. Hence, my earlier point: the CoE has lost the USP of Christianity.
Thanks, Geoff. Great to hear some parallel experience from other areas of life. ‘The enthusiasm and commitment of the volunteers was humbling, with so many ideas, after some training, it was sometimes difficult to keep up.’ That sounds brilliant and inspiring. I was once, to use R S Thomas’ phrase, ‘Vicar of large things in a small parish’ which was a farming community. Coming from London I had to learn from the people what their lives were about and what ministry meant there rather than come in with a pre-packaged model and tell them how it was. Lots of listening, less speaking. Clergy sometimes need to deliberately become learners from their congregations rather than just giving instructions to them, which is the didactic model of ministry that so many adopt. Thanks again.
One last telling point, to me, Tim was that the volunteers were never impressed with polished, professional type presentations, nor money spent on glossy annual reports, as they both illustrate to them and attempt to hide or cover-up something.
They had a collective nouse that was resistant to being fooled and patronised! And the professionals need them more than they needed the professional.
Maybe, I just my dad’s son. Dad used to say that medics wouldn’t have a job if it weren’t for him and his ill health! not that he took them for granted.
How often do we look through the wrong end of the telescope? Particularly in any “service industry”? Who or what do we truly serve? And how?
Sure, in the NHS, the adage was that the patient was the most important person, but in practice…
And the most challenging question to ask of each of us, ‘ would you like to receive the service you are providing?’ which is in itself a reworking of the Golden Rule. Some professionals in truth admit they do not ( and some realise that it is the system itself that militates against or contributes towards doing so) the present BMA work to rule argues along those lines). The difference between the BMA and CoE is that the CoE sets its own systems, is its own paymaster.
Some quick thoughts.
Isolation of the clergy is really worrying in a national church. All of our parishes border other parishes. We have deaneries. We have deans, and archdeacons, and suffragan bishops. Are we using all of that in the right way to support, to provide a breather, opportunites to reflect or get help? Or have they slipped into bureaucracy and politicking? Most towns will have a Churches Together set up. Do we encourage our clergy to all make use of that?
Getting people doing things is tough, and probably harder than it’s ever been (partly as Elaine says because of the demise of the early retirees). Are we trying to ‘keep the show on the road’ with too few people, scrambling to manage to do what we’ve always done? Might a stripped back approach, that is less burdensome give us the space to breathe and grow? If running events week in and week out is simply too much, does it make sense to drop it to a run a 6 weeks for something special? If you want to witness is it better to concentrate on a few set piece events in the year?
Uncertainty surrounding the very brand (accursed word…) in which one is supposed (was hitherto supposed by others) to believe is the most lethal thing. Ratner is the prime example. What John Robinson did with Honest to God is plausibly analysed in the same way by Sam Brewitt-Taylor. Because prospective ordinands are (a) not sure what the C of E stands for (good disagreement means it regards truth as not especially important, given that it knows that a lot of those disagreeing have not read up on things or researched), (b) not willing to commit to a church that so lacks passion about what it believes that it does not even know what it believes. No-one will go with those who are not passionate, because there will always be other things instead that people ARE [more] passionate about, so that a prospective ordinand can make common cause with the committed and the motivated. This leaves those in post in a dreadful state. They were always working a very long week. But now their parishes are multiplying and this is relegated in importance below the ubiquitous stranglehold of LLF. Now LLF brings the 3rd level – the indecision that brings instability and (for those in post) a lack of people willing to sign up for training and thus provide necessary help. And LLF encapsulates the way that conviction and the possibility that culture might be wrong have both capitulated. Quite unnecessarily and tragically. But it is never too late for them to admit their mistake.
For me, as a former CoE Cleric now early retired on health grounds, I’m glad I’m ‘out of it’! For me, the constant running down and into the ground of clergy through; constant weaponisation of safeguarding being used as blunt instrument to threaten clergy, the overwhelming demand to do more with less, the unreasonable expectations from ‘above’ (diocese) and ‘below’ (parish/congregation/strangers etc), the realisation that senior diocesan figures no longer supported their clergy ()no one9 had my back), national headlines of “clergy are the churches limiting factors”, constant demands for CMD and peer-led appraisals being ill used and not followed up with support…the list could go on.
All told the CoE is reaping what it has sown over past 30yrs. I thank God I am too ill, as a result, to be in it any more. Instead I’m now finding ministry in everyday life…just as I encouraged my congregations in those 30yrs.
The problem is not fixable, because it is due to the CoE’s structure and organisation – to which it is committed – and the departure of these from the New Testament. At this Anglican blog I prefer to stress what protestants have in common, but on this thread the discrepancy is unavoidable. The distinction between ordained and ‘laity’ causes the latter to believe they are not priests, yet the NT is explicit that all Christians are priests – mediating between God and the world – with Chrsit as our high priest. The practical outworking is that the vicar is expected to do the work that in the NT an entire congregation did, and the conscientious ones burn out while the callous ones give up and live an easy life (at least, in the 18th century). Then there is the fact that each ongregaion was run in the NT not by one man but by a council of elders/overseers (same men – one word describes their seniority and the other describes their role).
I wish all evangelical vicars well and gladly call them brothers in Christ, but the gradual sharpening of the boundary between the church and the world has brought these things to a crisis point for the Established church.
The Church of England is a Catholic but Reformed church, a church of bishops of apostolic succession of direct descent from the first Pope St Peter.
It is not and never has been a purely Protestant evangelical church
But it claims to adhere to the scriptures. Here is my exegesis of what the New Testament says about churchpolity:
https://church14-26.org/leadership/
Please tell me *exactly* where you consider it wrong, and why.
So called ‘elders’ could easily be priests. Jesus as I said also appointed St Peter to be first Pope and hence began apostolic succession to the Bishops of today. The great churches of Bishops of apostolic succession being the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church, the Anglican church and the Lutheran church. The Church of England is not, has not and never will be a purely Protestant evangelical church
There is s simple improvement tool – the 5 Y’s
A
Q Why
A
Q Why
A
Q Why
Etc
Elders could easily be priests
Q Why
….
Etc
T1
First, ‘elders’ ARE ‘priests’ in the simple sense that ‘presbyter’ is the Greek word that eventually mutated into the English word ‘priest’. However a ‘priest’ in the OT sense, and in the sense in which all Christians are priests, would be a different Greek word, ‘hiereus’. Elders, who are ALSO ‘episkopoi/overseers’ rather than ‘episkopos’ being a separate (let alone a superior) rank, are patterned not on a sacrificing/mediating priesthood but on the governing group of synagogues, also AIUI in Greek ‘presbyteroi’.
And you still haven’t properly answered the question I’ve kept asking which is “What is the actual use of an ‘apostolic succession’ which clearly from the current stances of many CofE bishops does not in fact reliably secure orthodoxy of belief…..??”
A key consideration is the the vicarious principle – standing in the place of – OT priesthood which is discontinued in the New, being filfilled Jesus, the True High Priest in the order of Melchizadeck. It is a substitutional, mediatorial role that is not delegatable nor transferable by succession to any human being.
Save that all believers on Christ Jesus as substitute, sacrifice, entering the Holy of Holies throne Room of God as High Priest, giving believers in union with him, direct access as a royal priesthood.
We do not stand in the place of Christ. That is high heresy. He stands in our place, stead.
Apostolic succession marks out the episcopacy of the C of E as directly descended from St Peter as first Pope, continuing on when it replaced the Roman Catholic church as the national English church
Why apostle?
Why succession?
T1
You wrote “Apostolic succession marks out the episcopacy of the C of E as directly descended from St Peter as first Pope, continuing on when it replaced the Roman Catholic church as the national English church”
So already your idea of ‘apostolic succession’ could not avoid the considerable contradictions between the CofE and the Papacy. Nor as I pointed out above has it ensured the orthodoxy of modern bishops on sexuality issues.
And surely no theory of ‘apostolic succession’ could suggest that the modern ‘successors’ are entited to contradict the New Testament, the testimony of the actual apostles….. You can repeat the phrase ‘apostolic succession’ till long after the cows have come home – and no matter how oftren you say it, it is an empty hollow scream….
You are a Baptist not an Anglican with an ideological agenda to turn the C of E into a Baptist church by all but name and dismiss its Catholic heritage. However of course all 3 houses of Synod voted by majority for PLF, the Houses of Clergy and Laity not just the Bishops. So the idea the Bishops alone have changed C of E services in this way is wrong
No genuine engagement with my exegesis, then, T1.
Regarding the apostolic succession, I accept that the Church of England cares about it and I don’t. For me the fact that in earthly terms I was converted by someone who was converted by someone who… all the way back to Jesus Christ is enough. But I have no ‘agenda’ to change the CoE. In my view persecution will do that within a decade or two. My agenda is to explain, sensitively and non-triumphally, to Anglicans feeling the pain at that time that no compromise is needed to serve Christ faithfully without the trappings of priestly ordination, Establishment, hierarchy etc.
I’d add that the apostolic succession is used as a weapon by churches that claim to have it, aiming to delegitimise churches that break away even if the former are deeply corrupt and the latter are godly. But if you have the Holy Spirit then you have God’s anointing, and who then needs man’s?
Simon T1: ‘The Church of England is a Catholic but Reformed church’ No, it is a reformed part of the church catholic, because its theological founders believed (rightly) that the Church of Rome had erred and drifted from the apostolic faith.
‘a church of bishops of apostolic succession of direct descent from the first Pope St Peter’ Tactile succession has the purpose of passing on teaching. On its own it is worthless. The C of E seeks to be in continuity with the teaching of the apostles, not merely tactile succession to them.
‘It is not and never has been a purely Protestant evangelical church’ It is very clearly a Protestant and reformed Church in its doctrine and liturgy. Sadly, some in the church do not act in line with this.
Christopher Shell
I’ve noted your response of
October 19, 2024 at 1:34 pm
Not sure I can adequately respond to it in this context; would you object if I copy it and make itthe basis of an extended blogpost on stevesfreechurchblog hopefully in a few weeks time?
Meantime the short answer is that it is rather the point of Christianity that humanly speaking it is voluntary and therefore it is really not possible to legislate to make people truly born again Christians. Unfortunately it is possible to superficially Christianise a population so that confusingly many end up identifying as Christian without actual spiritual new birth, or even essentially hypocritically because it is of worldly advantage so to identify.
This is one of the reasons why all the various versions of ‘establishment’ basically fail and often produce very unChristian results (thoughtful people should have expected the Spanish Inquisition,,,,). While awaiting a situation where serious Christians as measured by regulsar church attendance are more than 10% of the population we need to do some thinking on how to keep the Church separate from ‘the world’.
You said that when the majority of a population is Christian this is always a superficial Christianity. That is not logically true at all. Sometimes it will be true, at other times not.
As for legislating for people being Christians, you are not. They just wish to be, because it is better than the other options. And they do not take kindly to lesser option being forced on them as mainstream when there is a better one available. They feel short changed.
Christopher
Whether or not the majority of a population are truly born again Christians, the state as such cannot be meaningfully Christianised. End of……
How do you define state?
Is there any overlap at all between the state and the people?
If not, what constitutes the state?
Saying ‘end of’ does not make it ‘end of’. Otherwise saying something would make that thing true. I’m a millionaire.
Christopher
“The state” is the geo-political unit sometimes also called a nation though a modern state may be more ethnically diverse than ‘nation’ strictly implies. In a context like this ‘the state’ perhsps particularly refers to the government/authorities and the limits on what they can achieve by legislation.
Specifically it is beyond the power of that state to make anybody truly Christian, and therefore beyond the state’s power to more than superficially Christianise the state. Unfortunately an attempt to go beyond that power may produce much confusion and much occasionally lethal harm. Very much a case of “saying something DOES NOT make that thing true.” And my saying ‘end of….’ is not an attempt to make it so, but a simple statement of fact.
First, you are replying as though I do not know what the state is.
It should be assumed that most people of a certain age or intelligence will already know that.
What I asked was for the precise nuance of your own *definition* of ‘state’. And secondly whether state includes people or not.
If we are talking about government and legislature, then customarily they are less not more godly than the populace – at least recently.
But all the time I was talking of populaces who would wish to be Christian, and secondly would not at all wish to be fobbed off with any less good alternative. You are saying that populaces would not wish to have Christianity imposed on them. How can one generalise about that? And obviously everyone wants the best available system. If Christianity is taken away, then some less good system will be imposed instead. That is, of course, the reverse of progress.
As to ‘end of’, you are saying you have more say on what is a fact than I have. Is that the case, and what makes you have more of a say than I?
More than millionaire, in truth, Christopher. Ephesians 1 -2
I agree that it is not logically true. But the NT warns that most people will reject the church just as most rejected Christ.
Yes, you can use it as basis for a post.
Essentially in much of the discourse round establishment we need first to work out whether infrastructure and culture are being spoken of, or some kind of official establishment, or both.
If it is infrastructure and culture, our age are comparative pygmies who in an age of technology can build few ‘kirks’ when those who had none of the technology nor the money could build thousands of them and fashion a country round them. And if we get on to their beauty, then once again it is we who are very much the pygmies.
Christopher
In this and your previous comments you are making very heavy weather of something very simple. Christianity is humanly speaking voluntary. People can join or not as they please. Sometimes the state may make that illegal – we will live wih that or perhaps die as martyrs. Sometimes the state will try to hijack the faith and make it compulsory or at least specially privileged; that confuses the boundary between God’s people and the world and we should resist it. Ideally the state should offer its citizens maximum practical religious and philosophical freedom. Christianity is not a ‘system’ that the state can adopt or not, it is ‘not of/from this world’ and so none of the state’s business.
Voluntary? That gives equal (!) weight to those who humbly give in to the truth and the right way and to those who go their own way for selfish reasons. Of course they ‘wish’ to do the latter. That is self will, and you are encouraging it. You wrongly assume life choices are rational. Rather, there are different degrees to which selfishness can be encouraged, and the more you encourage it the more people will take you up on your offer. But embed everything that is good in the presiding system and it is a win win.
As for religious and philosophical freedom, that principle also denies that people are essentially selfish which can overcome rationality. Why assume Christianity is in those imposed categories of religion and philosophy at all? It could instead be self evident and/or merely true to reality, and whenever things are self-evident we don’t think twice about embedding them.
Geoff
“Why apostle?” “Why succession?”
As I understand it before the NT was comparatively readily available the deal woud be that the apostles founding a church would appoint suitable people as elders – ideally in effect apprentices who could pass on the teaching directly. This served well for some time but would eventually become subject to a mix of on the one hand the ‘Chinese whispers’ kind of situation, and in other cases a person would take over who had not really had a personal ‘apprenticehip’. with the NT increasingly available as a doctrinal ‘touchstone’, the personal succession became less necessary as in effect everyone could serve an ‘apostolic apprenticeship’ with original teaching from the apostles or their close associates like Mark and Luke.
Stephen,
The questions were asked of T1 for his understanding! And a consequent improvement in knowledge for us all. Otherwise it is a content- less slogan.
It would include definitions of what and how.
The significance is in T1’s non answer to priest, or is there now a conflation of priest/apostle? Confusion of offices and categories, functions, it seems.
T1
As I explained to Geoff recently, though my current membership is indeed of a Baptist congregation, I’m not really about denominations – my ‘agenda’ is simply that churches should be biblically faithful rather than following manmade ideas or ‘letting the world squeeze them into its own mould’.
I’m aware that more than just the bishops have voted for PLF – but my point was to challenge your notion of bishops in ‘apostolic succession’. Seems that apostolic succession also fails to keep other Anglicans apostolically orthodox too – apostolically orthodox as in following the indisputably apostolic scriptures.
I repeat – logically people in ‘apostolic succession should not contradict the apostolic NT; those who do contradict the apostolic NT are presumably not true successors of the apostles, even if they seem to be able to shpw a place in that ‘line of succession’.
I presume that means you also oppose women priests, like St Paul and divorce except for spousal adultery, as Jesus does. Both of which C of E churches now have or perform despite their being in contradiction to parts of the NT?
Did Paul oppose female ‘priests’? Read Andrew Bartlett’s book or the articles at Terran Williams.
As priests?
So that’s a no, (as ‘priests’) is it Peter, PC1?
Certainly, my understanding is that of Bartlett as barrister, and I’d consider it a little odd if he didn’t consider the the whole canon scripture, weighing the question of the vicarious principle, of which any lawyer would be well aware.
T1
I oppose ‘priests’ in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox sense anyway. Women as ‘elders’ may be a case where the NT ban should be regarded as temporary and various texts imply a possible future change, as for instance also in the texts about slavery.
Yes, for Christians spousal adultery seems the only proper cause for divorce; Where a divorce has preceded Christian conversion there may be a case for a slightly different view.
The NT’s rejection of ‘establishment’ and related ideas is at a different level; as is the teaching of churches run by a plural ‘presbyterate’ which has considerable implications for clergy stress and so clergy welfare….
Stephen,
You have raised a point in your penultiimate para, that i dont think has been raised in any of the articles or discussions – the question of the place and point of conversion, a new life transformed and redirected.
Maybe, that is a reflection of the deep effects of the theology of universalism, translated into the vestiges of the reduction of Christendom, to morals alone!; or as has been described as Moralist Therapeutic Deism, which seems to be the dominant theology of the day.
Geoff – interesting discussion but in the interests of keeping somewhere near the thread main topic I’ll pass on following it up for now.
Sorry I have to but in here Stephen- but where exactly does the NT reject establishment? As the Christian movement emerged from Pharisaic Judaism it would have continued with the forms of the existing Jewish religion only with the added (blasphemous to some) elements of the messiah having arrived and inaugurated the Kingdom of God. This I think is seen in the writings of the Church fathers and the preserved traditions of the Apostolic churches. If they were conducting services that looked something like a ‘bare walls and a sermon’ type of protestant service why would the Pharisees & authorities have seen them as a threat?
Jesus himself effectively rejects establishment and similar in his answer to Pilate that his kingdom is “… not of/from this world … ” It was rather exactly Pilate’s job to stop such establishments! I’ve explored this further on my blog, here’s a link …
https://stevesfreechurchblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/46/
In effect Jesus turns down the expected Messianic role of militarily conquering the world for God and in the new covenant offers a different kind of ‘conquest’ through individual faith.
Peter puts more flesh on this idea in his first epistle when he portrays the church itself as God’s holy nation under the new covenant, operating in the world internationally somewhat like the Jewish ‘Diaspora’, with Christians as ‘resident aliens’ (Gk ‘parepidemoi’), effectively citizens of the kingdom of heaven living ‘abroad’ even in what is humanly speaking their native land.
The big threat in Jewish eyes was the claim that Jesus was not just the Messiah but an incarnation of God himself.
Paul – The establishment certainly rejected Jesus: John 11:49-53 shows the religious establishment at the time (headed by Caiaphas) rejecting Jesus and indeed plotting to kill him.
Christians rejecting the establishment – well, Acts 18:4-7 is a good example of this. Acts 18:4, we see Paul making a habit of teaching in the synagogue. He didn’t like what he had to put up with in the synagogue, so he shook the (symbolic) blood from his robe and left the synagogue – and carried on his teaching ministry at the house next door.
Paul – the church is betrothed to Christ and therefore not free to marry the state. The state is an institution of this world, and Satan is the lord of this world until Christ returns. We don’t want to let Satan into our churches.
In the 4th century the church became the Established church of the Roman Empire. Within one lifetime persecuted became persecutors, executing Priscillian for heresy instead of expelling him, and brawls took place in the streets of Rome over who should be its next bishop. Not exactly the New Testament.
‘the church is betrothed to Christ and therefore not free to marry the state’
Being the church established by law does not mean ‘being married to the state’.
Ian: The church being married to the State is the practical meaning of Establishment in my opinion. But if you prefer something less mystical, how about no man can serve two masters?
Establishment means that the doctrine of the Church is enshrined in law, not that the state tells the Church what to believe. So in what sense is the state the master of the church here?
Constantine chaired the Council of Nicaea and Henry VIII regarded himself as the equivalent of the Pope in Henry’s own realm.
You say, Ian, that “Establishment means that the doctrine of the Church is enshrined in law”. But what does that mean in practice; what are the outworkings of that?
Well for one thing it means that bishops can enforce discipline on the clergy with the force of law behind them if needed. Happened with Pemberton v Inwood.
I wouldn’t trust the present crop of bishops to post a letter.
Yes, Stephen.
In this era of social media , how many of us would even pass the rudiments of public examinations, by answering, addressing the topic rather than the questions which haven:t been asked. GCSE failure for all our intellectual and professional status.
So obviously where the C of E is different from Jesus and less holy, Simon thinks it is the C of E that is right and thinks that Jesus, in his holiness, is wrong.
Simon, am I right in that?
Interesting question about “apostolic scriptures”. It seems to be those most at ease with abandoning apostolic succession are also those who are most at ease with the canon of scripture being edited in the 16th century (throwing out books like Judith and 1 and 2 Maccabees etc.). One of the Orthodox criticisms of Protestantism argues that the emphasis on “sola fide” stands in contradiction to St James who wrote that faith and actions go hand in hand, and so “a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.” James 2:24
No it doesn’t contradict.
That is a misunderstanding and in the context of this article takes is down a different road – a one of the reformed five fingered hand of solas’s.
Anglican, Dr Michael Reeves has written and spoken well and simply on this point, for a book length consideration, see By Faith ALone, Matthew Barrett.
But for openers, here is a short overview of the reformed 5 Solas.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-five-solas/
AJB
As I understand it the ‘editing’ of scripture by Protestantism was because of a recognition that the church had been using the Septuagint (LXX) Greek version which originated as a secular product for the Alexandria library and contained texts which were not accepted as scripture by the Jewish faith. Quite a few texts from those books were the only support for some RC teachings.
James is no great problem he protests at a misunderstanding of Paul (and from Paul’s own writings he would have condemned it as a misunderstanding too) which saw a ‘bare faith’ as sufficient rather than a faith which led to good works.
Simply; by faith alone, which doesn’t remain, stand alone. It is some evidence of faith counted righteous. It is a redirected life.
Michael Reeves refers to the Adamic covenants, Adam’s faith-trust /righteousness and its following/ fruitful/consequent action. It is Adams faith, counted righteous in a redirected life.
Paul doesnt mention Adam just Abraham. Did you mean Abraham?
Do you think God believes that a man’s wickedness is better than a woman’s goodness (Apocrypha: Sirach 42:14)?
I suggest you read The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church by Roger Beckwith. Melito of Sardis travelled to the Holy Land seeking to settle the canon and reached essentially the protestant conclusion in the second century, not the 16th.
AJB… But isn’t James highlighting that “faith without works is dead” … ie fake faith?
St James goes on to say “23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness”.
Often put as” Faith without works is dead but saving faith is never without works”. I’m sure there’s other versions!
Ian, what is key, yet seemingly and overwhelmingly missed or overlooked is the difference and distinction, between
1. ‘believing God’
2 believing ‘in’ God.
We can believe ‘in’ God without believing him, that is what He ‘says’.
That burst, erupts to the surface, in revisionism of scripture, God word, speech.
And if we don’t believe God, we will not have transformed, redirected lives, any reason to know or seek to know his ways, desires, if God is not to be believed, according to his nature and purposes, Person.
Geoff… I know all that and believe it…
The thrust of my answer to AJB was to gives the scripture he quotes a more complete context in James’s letter.
Blessings on your day… Ian
It really wasn’t a response to you Ian H, but for cumulative emphasis along with the other responses to AJB.
I sometimes wonder if there is a contradiction between Paul and James and evangelicals just dont want to admit it, so they argue that ‘justification’ or ‘righteous’ do not mean the same thing in James as they do in Paul.
Well precisely, but that is why the sola fide emphasis is problematic. Faith without works, is faith alone.
AJ Bell – you of all people should be particularly interested in ‘by faith alone’. Your main contribution here seems to be to trash the ‘ideal’ Christian life (one man and one woman in lifelong union) as being ‘eschatological’ in the sense that it is far too high and too hard to follow in this life. You continually advocate that sometimes two people of the same sex actually need physical sexual intimacy with each other – even though you understand full well (Scripture is clear on this) that such a union is inherently sinful (the meaning of the so-called ‘clobber verses’ from Leviticus are clear and plain).
What therefore do you have left other than the grace and mercy of God? What else do you have left to trust in other than John 3:16 – by ‘belief’ the believer believes that the crucifixion was to deal with the believer’s own personal sin – including the besetting sins, the sin that he cannot overcome in this life – and through the resurrection that his sin has been fully dealt with.
You – of all people – should be well aware that a *requirement* of ‘good works’ (or a spell in ‘purgatory’ – as some of the apocryphal books seem to advocate) won’t work.
The ideal Christian life is a married life? I will trash that idea, because if we believed it that would mean that Jesus failed to live an ideal Christian life, which is clearly wrong. And Paul himself tells us directly that he thinks it is better not to marry.
I continually point out that we are told in Scripture that imposing a rule of celibacy is a bad idea – Jesus says so in Matthew 19, Paul says so in 1 Corinthians 7 (very directly) and 1 Timothy 5. Paul goes so far as to warn against sexless marriages. No one has yet said why I’m meant to be wrong about that, or why we can safely ignore it.
Without God’s grace and mercy, none of us have anything. So when Jesus preaches the Gospel for the first time in John 3, it begins with “For God so loved the world”.
AJ Bell – I agree that a married life is not the ideal set out in Scripture (Scripture does seem quite keen on celibacy which – as you point out – is probably in most cases a very bad idea), but this is small potatoes in comparison with the main point which you have evaded – which has (of course) nothing to do with imposing rules of celibacy or imposing rules about anything else – and which has everything to do with how a sinner (who can’t live up to these rule which are imposed) achieves eternal life and eternal communion with God.
Answer – by the grace of God alone – through faith in Christ, that his atoning at Calvary was necessary and sufficient. All our sins – including besetting sexual sins of those who believe in Him are dealt with in Calvary.
Do you believe this? Or do you think that your salvation depends additionally on some ‘good works’ which you have to offer? Do you believe that Christ has done the whole job to get you into heaven? Or do you think he has left something for you (which you are quietly confident you will be able to achieve)?
If the former, then preach it out – if the latter, then you have a problem. Taking the opening of John 3 (which you quoted) – does God’s love apply to you?
The diocese teams, the Bishop, the Archdeacons.. they are not here to support the clergy and parish ministry… the clergy and parish are treated as if they exist to support the diocese initiatives; as if the role of the clergy is to support the latest ideas of the archdeacons and the bishops. And all the legal responsibilities fall on the clergy.. if they are even aware of the legal responsibilities. And all of the PR of the Bishops offices is about making promises to the public that the clergy must then deliver on. Which Bishop or Archdeacon is offering to do a wedding every weekend of August? Yet they are sending teams to wedding fairs to promise on behalf of their burnt out clergy, whom they don’t talk to …never mind listen. Weddings, Safeguarding, Buildings law, Volunteer PCC Management… every Bishop and Archdeacon should have to have one parish of their own. That would bring change to their priorities.. . Comment from a parish vicar.
Thanks for your sad and moving comment. I do think there are some major questions to be asked about why so much power and money has moved to the centre of dioceses.
Our previous diocesan secretary gave a presentation to our deanery a few years ago, and opened by saying ‘The diocese is the basic unit of the church’. Some of the clergy literally got up and walked out!
I am grateful that our diocesan team are actually very supportive. But I still have questions about why so many central staff…
“basic unit”… Beyond suitable words!
I think we’ve both served in the same diocese where the cathedral was promoted as the “Mother Church”… In which the biblically questionable was preached.
Central Staff… I’m puzzled that money from the “centre” is channeled to further central diocesan posts while parish posts are being cut or turned part-time. I’ve no doubt that some places are not viable or need reconfiguring but have that feeling it’s actually about the money (hence the Wedding Fair escapades) .
Yes, a mission /action plan can help focus but cut clergy presence and extinction is risked. The success or failure (as a diocese sees it) is effectively completely “outsourced” to the parishes. The centre bearing not enough of the burden or risk. Sympathy in the centre is not enough.
Who decides to split “the CofE’s money” into these separate streams or in what proportions… and on who’s advice? Where is this agenda/strategy decided?
I remember some nice illustrations that I once saw of ‘The Pilgrim’s Progress’. One in particular sticks in my mind – Christian was fleeing the City of Destruction and the central point of the City of Destruction was the cathedral.
Aren’t many of the central staff employed in statutory roles?
We are set up for a stark and unfamiliar culture clash.
Your church’s PCC may be the last place in the country where you can see seated around a table a teacher, a retired care worker, a housewife, a chartered accountant, a senior civil servant, a car salesman, a jobbing actor, and a florist. Most of the rest of the time we work with people who are thoroughly grounded in our industry and its culture. Whenever I’ve been on a PCC one of the really striking aspects is the extent to which the things which some people find completely normal to others are utterly infuriating.
A more managerial church (and the current generation of leaders are I think more managerial in a particularly public sector way) brings a very distinctive cultural perspective, that everyone else will find puzzling at best. That goes beyond the managerial approach being good or bad for thinking about problems and find solutions, but the mere way of talking can be alienating.
What this shows is that the CofE – and indeed way too many other churches – are not organised in the way indicated by the scriptures, but in a way which if anything parallels the structure of the secular Roman Empire. It is perhaps not surprising that this worldly structure is actually neither very good for the working of the church nor for the wellbeing of the clergy…..
It shows an imperfect organisation. Is your church perfectly organised “according to the scriptures”?
Ian
Wouldn’t dare claim our arrangements are perfect – but they are quite different to the CofE and I think better in terms of stress on the pastor.
Thanks Stephen… My friendly point is that I doubt it’s possible “organise”, which implies “structure” merely from the NT accounts.
Presbyters (which you may not knowis how some liturgy of the CofE defines “priests”, not “hierus”. I’m one of them…) and Deacons are those holding office. There’s not much about how it held together. I think it does describe a shared leadership functioning, not sole leadership.
I note you say “pastor”. That’s often a singular role, deacons notwithstanding. And the stress isn’t automatically done away with. “A rose by any other name…”? Vicar… Pastor
I don’t think the CofE is a perfect structure and believe it needs change but I don’t think your dismissal of it is justified. Certainly Jock’s comment below is unhelpful and dismissive of fellow Christians. Or is my faith in Jesus alone for salvation, now nearly 60 years on from my conversion, (within the Anglican fold) deserving of a crude dismissal? Plenty people have been converted over the decades. God has blessed within the weakness of it. Typically God!
If you find a perfect church… Etc
Thanks Ian
AIUI the NT teaches a basic structure for the local church of a plural eldership (and of ‘bishops’ as simply another word for elders, rather than regional/’diocesan ‘CEOs’). Baptists and many other non-conformists work in terms of association of independent local churches rather than a ‘top-down’ structure such as the CofE has. Baptist practice is moving in the direction of team ministry and also a Baptist pastor is rather a ‘teaching elder’ than having the wider responsibilities of a typical CofE vicar – we don’t have quite so sharp a clergy/laity divide anyway.
I’ve been making the point fairly heavily that the ‘presbyter’, though that word is the original of the English ‘priest’, is in fact an elder and biblically that is a slightly different role; and as you say, not an OT or pagan ‘hiereus’.
Right now we have a titular single pastor; but we and he still make it a team ministry and he has a supporting team to look after his welfare in various ways, and pastoral responsibility for individual church members has long been distributed among a team each taking responsibility for a number of church members (and for some who aren’t formal members as well)
The big thing of the CofE which I reject rather than merely being ‘dismissive’ is the establishment; it has the practical effect that the body is in many ways trying to serve two masters, God and the world, and we have rather high authority that serving two masters doesn’t work….
Ian Hobbs – the feeling is mutual – and I usually find your whole contribution unhelpful, but particularly so on this thread. Further up the thread, I posed a question to try and put the discussion in a proper context. Your answer was dismissive – as if anyone even posing such a question was part of the C. of E. problem.
If one wants to understand the sort of support that clergy giving pastoral care need (or should expect), one first goes to Scripture. Scripture (on this point) gives plenty of examples of (a) people giving ‘pastoral care’ (from which one can define the job – those of us outside the C. of E. would probably like to know something of the ‘demarcation of duty’ and the Scriptural basis for this) and (b) the support that these people are receiving while doing the job.
Scripture does give one absolutely everything on questions like this if one looks for it.
So the question was well intended – and your dismissive response spoke volumes to me.
I thought there was something funny about the article, because it doesn’t deal with Scripture in the way I would have expected, by grounding ‘pastoral care’ firmly in Scripture (taking some well chosen verses to show what it is all about) -and crucially going on, grounding everything in Scripture, to describe the support that the church should be giving to those in the clergy giving pastoral care.
I posed the question, because I see a lot of ‘mission creep’ about this – ‘pastoral care’ in the C. of E. context including lots of things that don’t seem to be part of the job envisaged by the apostles writing Holy Scripture – and then discovering that the job is soul-destroying and there doesn’t seem to be the support available.
As far as my comment below goes – you might find it extremely helpful to read Karl Barth’s commentary on Romans 9 – 11. He doesn’t see any distinction between ‘the church’ that oversaw the crucifixion of Jesus and ‘the church’ of today (in which he includes the church that he belongs to) – and pointing out that nevertheless it is his duty before God to remain within this church, proclaim the word and carry out his pastoral duties within this context. He is doing this with his eyes fully open to the nature of the organisation he is dealing with – despite the very great evil within the organisation, it is organisation instituted by God.
I found his commentary on Romans 9-11 very enlightening – it explained an awful lot to me about what I see in the church – and the Christian response to this catastrophe – you would do well to read it.
Yes – the C. of E. organisation does have striking similarities to the church of 30 AD with Caiaphas as its head – imperfect as you say.
There was no Church in 30 CE.
And Caiaphas was never the head of any church.
If one wants to look at the way that the church was constituted through history, one also needs to look at other sources than only the NT, which was not written specifically as an instruction manual on how to organise a church. You get an indication of how things were run, but that isn’t the primary purpose of the NT I think we would all agree. And also in the beginning Christianity emerged from Judaism, not ex nilo, so it carried a bit of structure and organisation from that too. The bottom line is I think its ok to say that you prefer a particular Church organisational structure and use the NT to justify it, what you can’t do is say that this is exactly how the early church was doing it because it ignores all other sources of information as to how the church was actually organised and conducting itself – the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr and Polycarp and documents like the Didache. Also by the time the cannon scripture was settled a hierarchy of priests & bishops was already established with a set of non-scriptural traditions and understandings of what constituted the correct orthodox interpretation of scripture.
I think this is important to appreciate as it makes it clear that it is impossible to condemn the concept of priesthood without undermining your own foundations somewhat.
Scripture, scriptural -whole -canon -biblical- theology undermines any NT continuation of the office of priest.
It is not a question of ‘establishment’ nor ‘magisterium’, it is suggested.
Geoff – I thought (1 Peter) that we were all priests (that is – those who believe in Him – John 3:16).
Indeed Jock. Agreed. See my earlier comment. All believers are a Royal Priesthood (Hebrews) but it is the OT office, role, of priest that does’t continue.
(Again Hebrews) Jesus fulfills the OT offices, role, of Prophet, Priest and King, all of which point to him, terminate, complete in him, (once and for all).
And yet within decades of the journeys of Paul we have priests and bishops? Where did it all go wrong? and how quickly?
Decades? Or centuries?
Second century onwards? (ante-nicene period). Granted the meanings of Priest and Bishop are not always understood to be the same. But the point I wanted to make was its very selective to pick up the NT say ‘thats exactly how the Church should be ordered’ and ignore the fact that Churches weren’t in fact ordered like that for very long. It might be ‘Biblical’ but its not historically accurate. Of course if you feel that’s the way that Churches should be ordered there are plenty that do have that structure. The Anglican church, established or no, has a structure that is more aligned with pre-radical reformation historical church structure. I am coming to see this as more in line with the great catholic Church stretching back through to the apostolic era. Others may differ. It doesn’t guarantee orthodoxy, but then I am not sure congregational church polity does it any better.
Paul – you can see that it already was ‘all wrong’ at the time that the Apostle Paul was writing I Corinthians. Also – when he asks the Galatians ‘who has bewitched you?’ it doesn’t look too promising, does it? For the most part, the ecclesiastical side of things had certainly all gone wrong by the time John wrote to the seven churches in Revelation.
Jock – neither Paul nor John are criticising their churches for their organising polity, offices and ministries. Nothing said by either of them in Scripture would be denied by Church traditions that have priests and bishops organised along hierarchical lines and not congregationally. Clement also wrote to the Corinthinans, seems they were still not behaving 30 years after Paul wrote to them.
Paul – true, but I wouldn’t get too excited by this – nobody is criticising the organising polity and offices of the church at the time of Caiaphas, but it didn’t yield very good results.
Within a generation or two…
How about Ephesians, losing their first love.
Even post Exodus golden calf.
It is hard to leave our cherished past, embedded histories, idols behind.
And especially with the radical new, Exodus of all exoduses that the incarnation, life, death and resurrection and ascension that our Lord Jesus, ushered in.
The Triunity of God was not immediately grasped.
Please address the question scripturally, Paul.
Nuda Scriptura then? or Nuda Scriptura and one or two of the reformers?
I worry that there is a real tendency to treat the Bible more like the Koran. Doing so does not seem to create unity.
Yes, I think you are right. Scripture does indeed need interpretation.
Not at all, primacy of scripture. Sola scriptura is not nuda scriptura.
Any substantive
scriptural response to support your claim?
Doesn’t seem like it.
I’ll leave the conversation here as I find that last response quite aggressive in tone. You can make faith a debating society if you wish to, but I don’t think that is really how any of us approach God. All I will say is that after many years of trying to live the Christian life in churches that had constantly sought to emulate ‘the early’ church as they understood it only through the reading of the new testament I actually started to read and pray from the BCP. I read the 39 articles and I have been reading the works of the Church Fathers and beyond. I’ve been listening to Orthodox teachings which made me consider certain aspects of how we approach the understanding of scripture. I have a sense that the early Church as it actually was in history rather than in the imagination of 16thC reformers was not the ‘bare walls and a sermon’ no real presence in the Eucharist (started with Zwinglii) and certainly not the glossalia and 30 minute hands in the air worship services that have become common. Each to their own I say and whilst these things are not bad in themselves I find that I don’t personally feel the presence of God in them. I don’t know where I am heading spiritually to be honest, but I always hope to find a congregation that is generous enough to accept differences and humble enough not to assume that their way is the only God ordained way. (I attended a RC Mass over the summer, and I loved the service right to the point where Mary was named as Co-redemptrix. I am not crossing the Tiber anytime soon!)
It was a bare bones response to your bare bones and incorrect reduction to nuda scriptura.
The CoE Arts and formularies and BCP are based on the primacy of scripture, from which they derive a depth and richness that is so often missing today: more so it is denied in its revisionism of deconstruction of scripture.
I find it more than a little sad that strong reliable scriptural teaching seems to have been jettisoned in the CoE, with its current liberal theological domination and undercurrents.
It’s not easy to settle into a church.
As it happens, I see that the CoE theological foundational writings function as a type of ‘magisterium’, but again they have substantially been jettisoned in calmny of ordination ‘vows’.
I agree with you about the liberal drift, but to be honest the charismatic worship and practices are also not something that are in those foundational church writings either. I do worry that all that will be left of the CofE in ten years time will be a schismatic ‘Church of Alpha’ with some orthodox teachings in amongst the charismatic weirdness and a rump established Liberal church drifting ever closer towards universalism and irrelevance.
Is it to be either/or charismatic or liberal?
Is not the corrective/balance for both, reliable biblical teaching, centring on the Gospel and the ‘liturgy’ of gospel worship of our Triune God.
Our host seeks to redress the balance, or so it seems to me.
If Mary was named as co-redemptrix then whoever was responsible for that was going way beyond what the RC church teaches about her place in the economy of salvation. Perhaps it might be worth exploring another RC church before you write them all off.
Thanks Dexter. I was attending as it was my daughters Y6 school leavers mass. She says they don’t say anything like that at mass at her new Catholic school. I did wonder. There seems to be a sliding scale in Roman Catholicism on this matter – nearly every church you go into in Peru has a statue (looking like a creepy doll if I’m honest) of Mary above the altar. I’ve never seen that in a UK catholic church – Christ on the Cross always.
Co-Redemtrix is set in stone (literally! in mosaic) in the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem
Didn’t know that. Hideous. As is the Pope viewed as the Vicar of Christ
These are no small matters.
Can that mosaic be dated?
Is it original or a reiteration of something expressed written in earlier times?
It seems that it has not been restricted to geographical locations, but is of widespread magisterium dogma. Starting when?
On the other hand:
“The formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” – Pope Benedict XVI
“She did not ask herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no. The Redeemer is one and this title does not double” – Pope Francis
Paul – the so-called ‘glossalia’ that you speak of is something that I have seen. It bears no relation to what the apostles were doing when they were speaking in tongues – and is, quite frankly of the devil.
I had an uncle who, in his younger day (mid 20’s) was ‘taken in’ by it, a fervent, spiritual, ‘leading light’ of the Assembly of God church that he attended. By the grace of God, he was enlightened at some point (‘road to Damascus’ style conversion) and understood that this was, indeed, of the devil – and never darkened the doors of a Charismatic establishment for the remaining 65 years of his life.
It isn’t Christian and therefore I don’t really understand why you include it in your ‘broad brush’ description of Christian worship styles.
If you are going to call quite a widespread practice of charismatic Christians ‘of the devil’ there is not much hope of decent conversation. Perhaps time to call it quits?
‘Perhaps time to call it quits?’ Yes – I agree.
XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.
I know this was intended to ensure services conducted in the vernacular and not Latin – but I wonder does this not also preclude glossalia?
Paul, (not Ian P)
A careful reading of the Art. you cite shows that there was a common understanding of tongues. Based on what? On evidence of the reality in use.
Yet it’s use was not appropriate in the congregation, in prayer or administration of sacrements.
Why? It is not understood by people.
That Art. aligns with scripture, 1 Corinthians.
It certainly isn’t attributed or denounced to be of the Devil.
I can’t be certain, now, but I think I’ve been in an RC (charismatic) service, when there has been quiet, gentle singing in tongues.
(and rather ironic for someone with 666 in his email address…)
Geoff could you please moderate your tone in the name of respectful discussion. Thanks.
Is that not what I’ve done, with further comments in reponse to an accusation of what, to me was a hostile and incorrect denunciation of ‘aggresive tone’.
It’s a little odd that short rejoinders seem to be something of a one-way street, as far as tone and feelings go.
Last,
What I don’t find respectful at all is when substantial highly relevant matters on the subject are ignored, effectively, unilaterally closing down the scope of ‘discussion’ on self -selected terms.
And yes, and yes what has happened to the topic the article in this huge diversion.
I thank those who have direct experience for their comments, though they are too few in number. But enough
Priest in the New Covensnt.
Pertinent? Highly.
I make no apologies for linking this, from today, spoken and text:
“What’s New in the New Covenant?” from Ligonier Ministries https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/whats-new-in-the-new-covenant