Thread: What would ++John Sentamu do differently than ++Rowan as ABC? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023368
Posted by Try (# 4951) on
:
Ok,so ++John Semantu seems to be the odds on favorite to become the next Archbishop of Canterbury. The African bishops seem to like him because they think of him as one of them, a fellow African. However, while Semantu was born in Ugunda, he fled the Idi Amin regime in 1974. He's spent 38 years in the UK, and his entire ministry career has been in the UK. I know that some conservatives hope, and some progressives fear, that he would dis-invite ECUSA from the Lambeth Conference, or only invite the Communion Partners bishops, thus allowing the GAFCON bishops to attend in good consince. Some people even seem to think that he would invite +Bob Duncan and the ACNA to Lambeth. I must say that I think that the last scenario extremely unlikely, since his name is on a report saying that the Church of England is not in communion with ACNA and doesn't want to be. While ++Semantu may be of african descent and hold more conservative personal openions on sexual morality then Rowan Williams, he really has no choice but to continue Rowan's policy of trying to bow twords Africa without mooning North America unless he wants a formal split in the Anglican Communion on his watch. In other words, I'm inclined to dismiss fears of his not recognizing ECUSA as unlikely - even if he wanted to, his hands are tied. He might, however, be able to get the GAFCON primates and the leadership of ECUSA back to the same table.
As an American Episcopalian I have focused on what ++Semantu would do differently as head of the Anglican Communion, but I'm also interested in what he would do differently as head of the Church of England. I assume that he would be pro-woman-bishops and pro-covenant. I have heard it suggested that he would be more aggressive in countering atheist public figures, demanding equal time from the BBC whenever they put Dawkins on, for example. He certainly, for good or for ill, seems to be much less posh then most Anglican bishops- I can't imagine ++Rowan writing for the Sun. Indeed, having read what ++Rowan writes, I don't think that he's capable of writing things Sun readers would understand.
Also, if he becomes Primate of All England, will ++Semantu finally invest in braces to correct the gap in his teeth?
[ 13. August 2012, 13:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Also, if he becomes Primate of All England, will ++Semantu finally invest in braces to correct the gap in his teeth?
So sorry to pick on the trivial bit at the end - but why would he do that if he hasn't already?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Indeed, having read what ++Rowan writes, I don't think that he's capable of writing things Sun readers would understand.
I'm sure he is. He's quite capable of talking to ordinary congregations in an accessible way, and relating to people of every background. I'm sure he wouldn't want to take Murdoch's shilling though.
BTW it's Sentamu not Semantu.
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Also, if he becomes Primate of All England, will ++Semantu finally invest in braces to correct the gap in his teeth?
So sorry to pick on the trivial bit at the end - but why would he do that if he hasn't already?
I think it was a joke.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm sure he is. He's quite capable of talking to ordinary congregations in an accessible way, and relating to people of every background. I'm sure he wouldn't want to take Murdoch's shilling though.
He famously wrote to a six year old girl.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
He also spoke to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this year.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
Reading your whole post, Try, I think it points out the tremendous cultural gap between ECUSA and the Church of England. Since the American Revolution I think they have certainly diverged.
I hope Sentamu doesn't become Archbishop of Canterbury because I think, at his age, he may not have all that much to contribute. I think they need to pick someone younger.
As far as the Archbishop of Canterbury attempting to be some sort of Head of the Anglican Communion, I would think, after what was done to ++ Williams, that attempt should be given up as a dead loss. The Communion isn't like that.
Americans seem to want to know an enormous amount about the personal life and likely stances of someone like this before he is appointed.
As an Australian with English relatives, I hope the English get a good ++ Canterbury. The effect on Australia will probably not be that great although Anglicanism here, given the demographic basis and joint history, is remarkably similar in many ways.
Various Provinces of the Communion seem to be diverging. I must say I would like England to keep its historic character.
Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
He also spoke to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this year.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Various Provinces of the Communion seem to be diverging. I must say I would like England to keep its historic character.
It seems to me that the CofE has more than one "historic character". If anything its major historical character has been that of having an argument. I don't think there is any likelihood of that ceasing any time soon.
Posted by Try (# 4951) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Also, if he becomes Primate of All England, will ++Semantu finally invest in braces to correct the gap in his teeth?
So sorry to pick on the trivial bit at the end - but why would he do that if he hasn't already?
I think it was a joke.
Yes, it was a joke.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
He also spoke to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this year.
As an Anglican, I have various prejudices about the Kirk, but thinking they are all Sun readers is not one of them.
Inncidentally at York Minster they pray for 2Sentamu our bishop" at his request. He was "John our bishop" in Stepney but I gather John was adopted for English use.
He wasn't as gay hostile as you might think.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
venbede: quote:
He wasn't as gay hostile as you might think.
How gay hostile was he?
Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on
:
I would like to think that +Sentamu would:
(1) inject a bit more of the African 'gathered' model of church membership to really tackle the problem of social Anglicanism in the CofE
(2) make decisions, not talk & compromise endlessly
(3) not rate "unity" in Anglican Communion more important than faithfulness to doctrinal and moral orthodoxy
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
I think he was good in London, where black men were treated badly at times, though, and he does seem to have good actions we see on TV and computer info. It would be really interesting to have him as ABC, IMO.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
(3) not rate "unity" in Anglican Communion more important than faithfulness to doctrinal and moral orthodoxy
Who gets to define this "moral orthodoxy"?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Lyda - the sun's out for a few hours in London. I'll write when I've come in.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
(3) not rate "unity" in Anglican Communion more important than faithfulness to doctrinal and moral orthodoxy
Who gets to define this "moral orthodoxy"?
The usual suspects. But you knew that.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
(3) not rate "unity" in Anglican Communion more important than faithfulness to doctrinal and moral orthodoxy
Who gets to define this "moral orthodoxy"?
The usual suspects. But you knew that.
I just get tired of the various codewords for "should be more obnoxious to gay people and women". I think, regardless of the status of those two deceased equines, that the hatred expressed by some conservative provinces is far more of an issue than any excess of permissiveness by the liberal ones.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
When he visited Boston two years ago he preached in Episcopal churches. That might indicate that he considers us part of the fold or what have you- I don't know.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
For us non-english Lutherans, what, exactly, is anglican covenant thinking?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The stated purpose of the Anglican Covenant is to ensure the unity of the Anglican Communion, but it is obviously a transparent ploy to get TEC and the ACC kicked out of the Communion. It failed in the CoE, so it's basically dead in the water now. But the game isn't over yet- to this day certain bishops are coming up with big new ideas to restructure the Communion which will make it possible to contract a divorce with us.
[ 12. August 2012, 13:23: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The stated purpose of the Anglican Covenant is to ensure the unity of the Anglican Communion, but it is obviously a transparent ploy to get TEC and the ACC kicked out of the Communion. It failed in the CoE, so it's basically dead in the water now.
To be fair, kicking out anyone who disagrees with you is a very effective way of ensuring unity. It's just not very Anglican.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The stated purpose of the Anglican Covenant is to ensure the unity of the Anglican Communion, but it is obviously a transparent ploy to get TEC and the ACC kicked out of the Communion. It failed in the CoE, so it's basically dead in the water now.
To be fair, kicking out anyone who disagrees with you is a very effective way of ensuring unity. It's just not very Anglican.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
what would Sentamu do differently than Rowan? Hopefully refuse the role of ABC.
Whilst Rowan has been dealing with issuesin the wider Anglican Communion, Sentamu has been able to develop his own ministry within the CofE. As aBC Sentamu would not be as effective in that ministry.
We need a manor woman as ABC we need someone with gifts of diplomacy. A diplomat in Canterbury would complement Sentamu in York, and I see that as the Anglican Church's strongest hand.
Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
(3) not rate "unity" in Anglican Communion more important than faithfulness to doctrinal and moral orthodoxy
Who gets to define this "moral orthodoxy"?
The Universal church, historic and contemporary. I don't see the problem with that unless one is authority-phobic ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
(3) not rate "unity" in Anglican Communion more important than faithfulness to doctrinal and moral orthodoxy
Who gets to define this "moral orthodoxy"?
The usual suspects. But you knew that.
I just get tired of the various codewords for "should be more obnoxious to gay people and women". I think, regardless of the status of those two deceased equines, that the hatred expressed by some conservative provinces is far more of an issue than any excess of permissiveness by the liberal ones.
Good Lord, it's only my sixth (?) post and you already know me well enough to brand me a homophobe. What a discerning, gracious person you are. BTW you are wrong in sooooo many ways.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
(3) not rate "unity" in Anglican Communion more important than faithfulness to doctrinal and moral orthodoxy
Who gets to define this "moral orthodoxy"?
The Universal church, historic and contemporary. I don't see the problem with that unless one is authority-phobic
Two problems. The church has historically made moral errors (slavery, crusades, inquisition, death penalty, subjugation of women), and what happens when the church cannot come to agreement, as is the situation we currently have?
Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The stated purpose of the Anglican Covenant is to ensure the unity of the Anglican Communion, but it is obviously a transparent ploy to get TEC and the ACC kicked out of the Communion. It failed in the CoE, so it's basically dead in the water now.
To be fair, kicking out anyone who disagrees with you is a very effective way of ensuring unity. It's just not very Anglican.
So shouldn't Anglicanism change or should it be a doctrinal/moral-free-for-all?
Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
(3) not rate "unity" in Anglican Communion more important than faithfulness to doctrinal and moral orthodoxy
Who gets to define this "moral orthodoxy"?
The usual suspects. But you knew that.
Presumptuousness does not become you.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The stated purpose of the Anglican Covenant is to ensure the unity of the Anglican Communion, but it is obviously a transparent ploy to get TEC and the ACC kicked out of the Communion. It failed in the CoE, so it's basically dead in the water now.
To be fair, kicking out anyone who disagrees with you is a very effective way of ensuring unity. It's just not very Anglican.
So shouldn't Anglicanism change or should it be a doctrinal/moral-free-for-all?
I think the oaths taken by clergy to uphold the ancient creeds and historic formularies are sufficient. There is room for diversity of opinion. If you want homogeneity, strict discipline and a lack of discussion, you'll find his Holiness in Rome.
Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on
:
Anyway, apologies to Try for the bickering tangent. Sorry, but I couldn't just sit here and take their BS. Back to the topic now!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The stated purpose of the Anglican Covenant is to ensure the unity of the Anglican Communion, but it is obviously a transparent ploy to get TEC and the ACC kicked out of the Communion. It failed in the CoE, so it's basically dead in the water now.
How different things look depending on where one is standing and what are the assumptions of ones culture.
Far from a transparent ploy to evict, to some of us, the Covenant looked like an attempt to persuade not just the US but some other provinces to consider others before acting unilaterally, that fitting in might be more Christian than insisting in doing ones own thing.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
I would like to think that +Sentamu would:
(1) inject a bit more of the African 'gathered' model of church membership to really tackle the problem of social Anglicanism in the CofE
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What do you mean by 'social Anglicanism'? If you're referring to Mattins followed by sherry followed by the Hunt then that is long dead in most places. If you mean the local church seen as the focus of community, for agnostics and Muslims as much as card-carrying Christians, well why is that a problem?
The C of E is not a sect and we don't want Archbishops who would turn it into one. Not that I suspect +Sentamu would do that.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
I would like to think that +Sentamu would:
(1) inject a bit more of the African 'gathered' model of church membership to really tackle the problem of social Anglicanism in the CofE
Jesus! I hope not! Don't we have institutions like the House Church Movement for those who want a conventicle of saints?!
Those people aren't 'social Anglicans'. They're normal English Christians who have a life.
For the OP: What would Sentamu do differently than Rowan if he were ABC? He would have even more photo-ops, and listen to fewer critics.
ETA: Angloid: Snap!
[ 12. August 2012, 14:17: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
Anyway, apologies to Try for the bickering tangent. Sorry, but I couldn't just sit here and take their BS. Back to the topic now!
I would appreciate you not sending me condescending emails in future. Keep your junior hosting to the board. If you use coded language to disguise your desire to impose your views on Anglicanism you can expect to be called on it.
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on
:
{Delete]
[ 12. August 2012, 15:26: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
...He certainly, for good or for ill, seems to be much less posh then most Anglican bishops- I can't imagine ++Rowan writing for the Sun. Indeed, having read what ++Rowan writes, I don't think that he's capable of writing things Sun readers would understand.
Whilst the media often comments on +Rowan's academic background, it seems to be rarely noted that +Sentamu did a 2yr MPhil followed by a PhD from Cambridge on soteriology.
x
AV
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
After qualifying as a lawyer in Uganda of course.
+Sentamu is not posh in the sense of public school and Oxbridge like Archbishops have traditionally been. But nor was +Carey and (apart from the Oxbridge bit, and that's because he's clever) nor is +Rowan. +Runcie was middle class but Liverpudlian, which made a change.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The stated purpose of the Anglican Covenant is to ensure the unity of the Anglican Communion, but it is obviously a transparent ploy to get TEC and the ACC kicked out of the Communion. It failed in the CoE, so it's basically dead in the water now.
To be fair, kicking out anyone who disagrees with you is a very effective way of ensuring unity. It's just not very Anglican.
So shouldn't Anglicanism change or should it be a doctrinal/moral-free-for-all?
I think the oaths taken by clergy to uphold the ancient creeds and historic formularies are sufficient. There is room for diversity of opinion. If you want homogeneity, strict discipline and a lack of discussion, you'll find his Holiness in Rome.
Hey, Arethose -- Stick's question was a false dilemma. He's just needling, just trying to get a rise out of you. I'd say: ignore him.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Not an Anglican but in the circles I move in, Sentamu seems to be much better thought of than Williams was at the same stage.
I've seen him from afar on a couple of occasions and what I see impresses me a lot. I don't happen to think he's as publicity driven as some seem to make out, and I think it's time that we had an abc who as many people as possible in the Uk could relate to.
John S has been through some pretty hard stuff in his life and come out the other side - that must say something for a faith predicated on sacrifice. I think he's got somehting to say and give to ordinary people - and full marks for being a Sun columnist.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
... I think he's got somehting to say and give to ordinary people - and full marks for being a Sun columnist.
This is why IMO he's the best choice. He's well-known and well-regarded among the non-posh majority. I know some of the other ABC's haven't qualified as posh but most people wouldn't know.
I don't think his age matters, even if he had a relatively short time as ABC he could make an impact. I hope he'd continue writing in the populist press and use his popular appeal. He may be more directly challenging than Rowan and less likely to be misinterpreted by the press.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
It has been suggested that in a Ugandan context, Archbishop Sentamu is very posh indeed. But regard that as hearsay.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The stated purpose of the Anglican Covenant is to ensure the unity of the Anglican Communion, but it is obviously a transparent ploy to get TEC and the ACC kicked out of the Communion. It failed in the CoE, so it's basically dead in the water now. But the game isn't over yet- to this day certain bishops are coming up with big new ideas to restructure the Communion which will make it possible to contract a divorce with us.
Actually, I think a de facto schism already exists between certain Provinces of the Communion, Zach. That would be Sydney and its allies and North America. Most other Provinces are not involved in this and would like to stay so, as is their right.
God forbid the Communion in toto come around to either, to my mind, extreme position. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Thank you Stick Monitor and Sir Pellinor for the handy demonstration of the "Anglican Covenant Attitude" we were trying to explain. To sum "Give us the rope we need to hang you with."
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Thank you Stick Monitor and Sir Pellinor for the handy demonstration of the "Anglican Covenant Attitude" we were trying to explain. To sum "Give us the rope we need to hang you with."
That's exactly why those of us outside the Anglican church - but who love it nonetheless - are looking on in sadness and bemusement at why it has been allowed to continue without resolution for so long.
Ineveitably Williams' legacy will be tainted by such issues and the task of his successor will be made impossible by the same. Decide, act, deal with the fall out is the only way forward.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
I think the more interesting question will be how long it is before the commentators are saying "Come back, Rowan, all is forgiven"...
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
How gay hostile is Archbishop Senatmu?
When he was Bishop of Stepney, I was in his area. He certainly supported and was in dialogue with the most obvious gay priest on General Synod and came to his church annually.
At the Lambeth Synod before last, there was a letter signed by various bishops taking what was to be the GAFCON line.
I was unfortunately a member of the London Diocesan Synod. We spent an entire evening discussing a motion brought by one evangelical lady to the effect that all priests in the diocese should accept the contents of this letter.
Bishop Sentamu had his turn at the microphone and with some excitement objects to the motion. He made the point he personally agreed with the contents of the letter and had himself signed it. However the motion was totally ridiculous: it was putting it on the level of the Apostle’s creed. I could have hugged him.
It may be irresponsible of me, but since that time I’ve never bothered much with church politics, all that energy just to argue something should be talked about, ignoring the complex issues involved. I know being gay and Christian are compatible. I just get on being both and hope that my life may be at times a better witness than any synodical arguments. Good on those who do so engage, though.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It has been suggested that in a Ugandan context, Archbishop Sentamu is very posh indeed. But regard that as hearsay.
Be that as it may, as ABY he's seen as classless. He has an egalitarian approach, as shown at his enthronement when everyone had the same picnic lunch, and it comes across as genuine. Rowan is also egalitarian and equally genuine I'm sure but this isn't widely communicated. It's not that he or any other possible ABC is at fault, it's that ++Sentamu has particular qualities that are needed now.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Thank you Stick Monitor and Sir Pellinor for the handy demonstration of the "Anglican Covenant Attitude" we were trying to explain. To sum "Give us the rope we need to hang you with."
This would be a perfect example of the intellectual tunnel vision you seem to suffer from, Zach and for which orfeo called you to Hell.
You appear to be unable to see anyone else's position or the broad picture. Many in ECUSA, not necessarily some of the more PR savvy hierarchy, can.
Perhaps you should stick to discussing abstruse theological minutiae with those who so admire your nitpicking ability and leave broader issues to those with the ability to comprehend them?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Pelly, I am not personally responsible for everything wrong in the Anglican Communion. Your pathetic little vendetta against me is literally years long. If you continue to air it outside of hell, I am going to issue an official complaint against you. It is not your job to declare where I can and cannot post.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
I would like to think that +Sentamu would:
(1) inject a bit more of the African 'gathered' model of church membership to really tackle the problem of social Anglicanism in the CofE
What do you mean by 'social Anglicanism'? If you're referring to Mattins followed by sherry followed by the Hunt then that is long dead in most places. If you mean the local church seen as the focus of community, for agnostics and Muslims as much as card-carrying Christians, well why is that a problem?
The C of E is not a sect and we don't want Archbishops who would turn it into one. Not that I suspect +Sentamu would do that.
Well the first is only partly true. We no longer have mattins and sherry, but sung eucharist and sherry. The last vicar managed two important changes in his ministry: the greater celebration of the eucharist and the substitution of dry rather than the insipid sweet sherry in the vicarage.
The idea of the CofE being 'gathered' is only one degree above disgusting. And no-one from the Plymouth Brethren would be contemplated for the post.
'Gathered' Ugh.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The idea of the CofE being 'gathered' is only one degree above disgusting. And no-one from the Plymouth Brethren would be contemplated for the post.
'Gathered' Ugh.
As a non-Anglican, I don't know if it would be disgusting, but it certainly wouldn't make a lot of sense. Being a national church is the opposite of being a gathered church.
On the other hand, if or when it becomes obvious that the cultural ties to the CofE are more absent than present, it might be difficult for the CofE to continue to argue that it's the centre of the community and that it must maintain its position of preeminence. At any rate, it'll surely have to come up with a more nuanced argument for doing so.
Maybe the national church could gradually morph into some kind of national faith institute, representing religious and spiritual groups from different traditions. The new ABoC should perhaps start making discreet overtures to other religious leaders (maybe including humanists?) to see how this idea might fly.
This might not seem relevant now, but when Queen Elizabeth II passes away, the CofE in its current state will be vulnerable. It would be for the best if the next ABoC or two gave the issue some thought before it becomes urgent.
I'd be interested to know what Archbishop Sentamu's relations with other denominations and religious groups are like.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Actually I agree with that last post and think it a good idea, apart from the statement about vulnerability after the death of the Queen. Her successor Prince Charles, when he becomes Charles III or more likely taking one of his middle names George VII, would be ideally suited to follow this idea through.
It was Prince Charles who mooted the idea that rather than 'Defender of the Faith' he would prefer to be 'Defender of Faith'. His sincere and developed interest in religion, his personal and long standing friendship with the Dalai Lama and other prominient faith leaders, would make your idea more successful then, than now.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
I would like to think that +Sentamu would:
(1) inject a bit more of the African 'gathered' model of church membership to really tackle the problem of social Anglicanism in the CofE
What do you mean by 'social Anglicanism'? If you're referring to Mattins followed by sherry followed by the Hunt then that is long dead in most places. If you mean the local church seen as the focus of community, for agnostics and Muslims as much as card-carrying Christians, well why is that a problem?
The C of E is not a sect and we don't want Archbishops who would turn it into one. Not that I suspect +Sentamu would do that.
Well the first is only partly true. We no longer have mattins and sherry, but sung eucharist and sherry. The last vicar managed two important changes in his ministry: the greater celebration of the eucharist and the substitution of dry rather than the insipid sweet sherry in the vicarage.
The idea of the CofE being 'gathered' is only one degree above disgusting. And no-one from the Plymouth Brethren would be contemplated for the post.
'Gathered' Ugh.
Well, it's got to be better than the present mess, hasn't it? In reality we have at least three churches within the Communion, with the CofE embracing all of them behind the fig-leaf of Establishment. Time to structurally recognise that and for each to go its own way.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, Zach82, but I'm with Sir Pellinore. Quick ... some Host intervene before this gets hellish ...
I don't read it that he was telling what or what not to post, just how your post exemplifies an attitude that we have seen amply exemplified on other threads.
A myopic, tunnel-vision, Spock-like lack of nuance. There, I've said it. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself as well.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
[QUOTE]The idea of the CofE being 'gathered' is only one degree above disgusting. And no-one from the Plymouth Brethren would be contemplated for the post.
'Gathered' Ugh.
I'm with others on this. How do you know that this won't save the day?
What you've got now clearly isn't working for all sorts of reasons, not least the fact that the CofE can't make any decisions: fencesitting is a very unattractive position which brings about an unattractive expression.
Most people are neither pro nor anti cofe, it just doesn't enter their mindset or lifestyle. If nothing changes with the cofe, then expect public perception to remain unchanged.
Yes I'm aware of all the arguments about keeping tradition alive, following our calling etc .... but surely there has to be some engagement with the wider world that recognises changing times?
There's a breathless arrogance sometimes surrounding the Cofe that suggests that they always know best. They may do sometimes but not all the time.
What have you got to lose if you change? Only your chains.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Actually I agree with that last post and think it a good idea, apart from the statement about vulnerability after the death of the Queen. Her successor Prince Charles, when he becomes Charles III or more likely taking one of his middle names George VII, would be ideally suited to follow this idea through.
It was Prince Charles who mooted the idea that rather than 'Defender of the Faith' he would prefer to be 'Defender of Faith'. His sincere and developed interest in religion, his personal and long standing friendship with the Dalai Lama and other prominient faith leaders, would make your idea more successful then, than now.
I was indeed thinking of the 'Defender of Faith' concept when I wrote my post! Prince Charles has been very open about his non-orthodox religious perspectives, so it would surely be very difficult for him to justify becoming head of the CofE; he could far more easily justify becoming the public face of a more ecumenical/interfaith organisation. Anglicans might find this more agreeable than outright disestablishment.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can understand what you're getting at EE, but I would suggest that whilst I can understand Matt Black's suggestion that all three poles (can you have three poles - it seems so - if there's a tripod or a three-legged stool, of 'buffet' as they'd say in Yorkshire) - go their separate ways, I'm not sure what would be gained.
What 'chains' would the CofE lose if it changed - and in what way should it change?
Arguably, if the more evangelical ones all decamped then they'd simply exchange 'establishment' chains for a different set of chains of their own manufacture - fundamentalist or charismatic chains. You and I well know how easy it is for those to weigh us down ...
And would the Roman wannabes or Orthodox wannabes really find as much freedom if they ended up crossing the Tiber or the Bosphorus? They might be happier in terms of 'orientation' - but, to use a possibly inappropriate analogy, transgender realignment doesn't always make those who undergo it any happier - it isn't a magic bullet and the test-cases are full of salutary stories of those for whom it didn't work ... although there are other stories of those for whom it did ...
As for the lib'rul or MOR 'pole' - if they are indeed one and the same, which I'm not convinced they are - we may need to introduce a fourth ...
Well, what happens to them? Should they merge with the Methodists or the URC? Would that free them of the apparent 'chains' you're referring to?
It might well be that the Anglican experiment is unsustainable in the longer term. I don't see any of the alternatives as being necessarily 'chainless' or with no strings attached ...
Do you?
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
I would like to think that +Sentamu would:
(1) inject a bit more of the African 'gathered' model of church membership to really tackle the problem of social Anglicanism in the CofE
What do you mean by 'social Anglicanism'? If you're referring to Mattins followed by sherry followed by the Hunt then that is long dead in most places. .
Hunting on a Sunday?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It might well be that the Anglican experiment is unsustainable in the longer term. I don't see any of the alternatives as being necessarily 'chainless' or with no strings attached ...
Do you?
No I don't actually. I agree with you. But, at least there's the opportunity of throwing off historical shackles and having some (albeit very small perhaps) control over what you now put on. There will always be restraints where human beings are involved - it's just finding the least painful ways of holding them that's necessary.
Division won't be good nor easy but if even a remnant is to survive, and to engage authentically with the world around us, then I suspect that it's necessary.
Just because I'm no longer an anglican doesn't mean that I see "my" current denomination as being somehow different or better. It isn't - and it has the same kind of issues to face in the near future in a fight for survival. The women bishops thing is, for most baptists, well and truly decided but the same sex and liberalisation of faith/social gospel issues will be the rocks against which many hopes and dreams (and futures) will be dashd.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
[QUOTE]We no longer have mattins and sherry, but sung eucharist and sherry. The last vicar managed two important changes in his ministry: the greater celebration of the eucharist and the substitution of dry rather than the insipid sweet sherry in the vicarage.
This immediately creates a divide between you and about 90% of the population and simply reinforces the social club idea.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can understand what you're getting at EE,
Do you mean me, EM (not EE)? [E as in EM is geographical as opposed to Etymological as in EE]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Rather than the horrid 'gathered', why not MORE inclusion within the Established Church- as perceived in the 19thC by Thomas Arnold? Include the Methodists, URC etc as one big CofE, as it were.
The CofE is just about congregationalist anyway. Rather than split, just stick more together.
King George VII would be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which would mean the amalgamation of the covenanting churches of 1982 - although the covenant failed then. Now we all have our backs to the wall, success is more likely.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
[QUOTE]We no longer have mattins and sherry, but sung eucharist and sherry. The last vicar managed two important changes in his ministry: the greater celebration of the eucharist and the substitution of dry rather than the insipid sweet sherry in the vicarage.
This immediately creates a divide between you and about 90% of the population and simply reinforces the social club idea.
I can't imagine 90% of the population would prefer sweet sherry. I have greater faith in the tastes of the great British public.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Rather than the horrid 'gathered', why not MORE inclusion within the Established Church- as perceived in the 19thC by Thomas Arnold? Include the Methodists, URC etc as one big CofE, as it were.
What's 'horrid' about 'gathered'?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The very idea of exclusive 'I'm in and your out' theology peddled by some who would like to see the designation of 'Christian' reserved to themselves. The church is a school for sinners, not a club for saints.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Rather than the horrid 'gathered', why not MORE inclusion within the Established Church- as perceived in the 19thC by Thomas Arnold? Include the Methodists, URC etc as one big CofE, as it were.
The CofE is just about congregationalist anyway. Rather than split, just stick more together.
King George VII would be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which would mean the amalgamation of the covenanting churches of 1982 - although the covenant failed then. Now we all have our backs to the wall, success is more likely.
As you know, there's been talk about some sort of CofE/Methodist union for quite a few decades now. The impression I've been given by Methodist clergy and theologians is that the CofE haven't really been very committed to the idea. I don't know what's been going on with the URC.
From my point of view as a Methodist, I wouldn't really want to be 'absorbed into' the CofE; it would have to be about several groups coming together to create something different, not simply about the CofE stamping its label on everything else and remaining dominant.
It must be admitted that simply including the Methodists and the URC alongside the CofE wouldn't really reflect the breadth of Christian presence in the country, and so it wouldn't represent religious equality. In fact, it might serve to create a sharper sense of division between the in-group and the out-group.
There might be legs in the idea of having a loose federation that any almost religious group might join, barring the most extreme, thereby accessing certain privileges.
[ 14. August 2012, 15:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I can't imagine 90% of the population would prefer sweet sherry. I have greater faith in the tastes of the great British public.
Sherry might be seeing a bit of a comeback but I would have thought less than 10% of the population ever drink the stuff, sweet or dry.
[PS but I agree with you about the school for sinners. Perhaps part of repentance could involve compulsory sherry tasting sessions]
[ 14. August 2012, 15:51: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The very idea of exclusive 'I'm in and your out' theology peddled by some who would like to see the designation of 'Christian' reserved to themselves. The church is a school for sinners, not a club for saints.
Yes, but there must be pupils enrolled at a school.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
The mental picture I get of a gathered church is of a group of the like-minded facing in at each other with their backs to the outside world. The CofE seems at least to see its mission and its structure to require it to be facing outwards. If, as Exclamation Mark says, the purpose of the church is "to engage authentically with the world around us" it seems rather easier to achieve in the second position than the first. My guess is that the outside world would also find it even easier to ignore a CofE that had become a series of gathered churches.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The last President of Conference was very much in favour of being an 'order' within the CofE or wider Anglican Communion. John Wesley would certainy have approved.
The CofE name would be just right for the groupings together you mention in your final paragraph, maybe 'Anglican' when abroad.
I would advocate the widest possible membership - as previosly stated, I dislike exclusivity.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There might be legs in the idea of having a loose federation that any almost religious group might join, barring the most extreme, thereby accessing certain privileges.
Without needing to tackle the thorny issues of ordination, sacramental validity, jurisdiction or anything else, a very simple way forward would be for all church buildings to be nationalised (on the analogy of Network Rail), leasing them out for use by various Christian (and non-Christian??) bodies who had a presence in that area. A cathedral for example would be able to accommodate an Anglican and a Roman Catholic eucharist each Sunday, along with Methodist, URC, free evangelical etc... services. Either concurrently, using different spaces in the building, or successively, or both. A similar but less elaborate scheme could operate in all churches down to the tiniest village. Some architecturally inferior ones could be declared redundant. Some places might find the Catholic or 'free church' building preferable to the Anglican one.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Angloid, most of the gathered churches I know are far more mission-focussed than many CofE gaffes.
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The last President of Conference was very much in favour of being an 'order' within the CofE or wider Anglican Communion. John Wesley would certainy have approved.
The CofE name would be just right for the groupings together you mention in your final paragraph, maybe 'Anglican' when abroad.
I would advocate the widest possible membership - as previosly stated, I dislike exclusivity.
So where would you draw the line?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Apologies, EM - I did mean you, not EE.
It seems that Zach82 is right in his accusation that I 'can't read'. I seem to have right royally pissed him off and he's sent me a PM to that effect. If you're reading this Zach82, I can't reply because you've put me on your 'Ignore List' - which you are perfectly entitled to do, of course.
Anyway, it was Hellish of me to join in on the side of Sir Pellinore, it wasn't my fight. I should have stayed out of it. So here's an apology.
I can't help finding your posts rather as I described over some issues, though, but then, I could say the same as some other people's posts too - and others would no doubt say nasty things about mine.
Anyway - back to the OP ...
On the 'gathered' or 'inclusive' thing ...
I've long been struck how Andrew Walker the sociologist claims that a 'sectarian' model might be an appropriate one in a post-Christendom setting, such as where we now find ourselves.
He suggests that the 'gathered' model may not be as alarming or exclusive as it sounds - it is possible to operate a more 'intentional' or 'gathered' approach without descending into the scarey territory of sectarian or cult-like exclusivity.
There are people in 'sects' (defined in sociological terms) who are distinctly non-sectarian in attitude. He cites the late Donald Gee, the AoG elder-statesman as an example of this. I would also suggest that some of the leading lights in the Brethren have been rather like that too - as much as I tend to tease Kaplan Corday on these boards.
I would also suggest that a 'sectarian' position is the default one that Orthodox parishes - and particularly 'convert parishes' - find themselves in here in the UK.
On the whole, I would say that more sociologically 'sectarian' churches such as the Baptist Union churches tend to get the balance right - although there is no room for complacency and some can become holy huddles ...
I think the important thing is for a church, any church, to have a hinterland or periphery. The CofE churches tend to have this by default, other churches have to work harder to create one.
Around here, the Methodists have a large 'hinterland' or periphery for historical reasons - out of proportion to the actual numbers who worship in Methodist churches week by week. They get loads of people through their doors for Christmas carols, pantomimes and so on - on a par, perhaps, with the numbers of once-a-year-only Anglicans in these parts.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The last President of Conference was very much in favour of being an 'order' within the CofE or wider Anglican Communion. John Wesley would certainy have approved.
The CofE name would be just right for the groupings together you mention in your final paragraph, maybe 'Anglican' when abroad.
I would advocate the widest possible membership - as previosly stated, I dislike exclusivity.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Apologies for double post
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Angloid, most of the gathered churches I know are far more mission-focussed than many CofE gaffes.
Where have I challenged this?
(Though there is a difference between an activist, evangelistic approach to mission and the more passive, 'we are here for people even those who don't want to be Christian', approach more characteristic of the C of E. I'm not preferring one to the other, but feel strongly that we need both. And not denying that other churches (especially the Methodists) are very good at the latter too.)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
My bad, it was Pre-Cambrian ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Sorry!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Apology accepted!
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The very idea of exclusive 'I'm in and your out' theology peddled by some who would like to see the designation of 'Christian' reserved to themselves. The church is a school for sinners, not a club for saints.
Yes, but there must be pupils enrolled at a school.
But school is compulsory in the UK
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
But school is compulsory in the UK
Education is compulsory in the UK. School isn't.
[ 14. August 2012, 17:07: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Apologies, EM - I did mean you, not EE.
Around here, the Methodists have a large 'hinterland' or periphery for historical reasons - out of proportion to the actual numbers who worship in Methodist churches week by week. They get loads of people through their doors for Christmas carols, pantomimes and so on - on a par, perhaps, with the numbers of once-a-year-only Anglicans in these parts.
Yep it does happen. In the land between wood and water the BUGB baptist church that I was part of had pretty much the same role. We were seen as "the" church in the 2 villages. We were after all doing a lot of schools work (where others weren't) and inviting people to church - they came!
I do, from time to time, find some cofe views about being the "parish" church as rather arrogant given that said establishments tend only to be interested in the wider community when a bit of cash inflow is required. The church between wood and water didn't even take an offering -- people gave if they could, bearing in mind it's one of the poorest areas of the Uk with one of the highest house price to av income ratios too.
[ 14. August 2012, 17:16: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, the Baptist chapel is also seen as the 'default' church in the village in South Wales where my mother lives - the Anglican church is a stiff walk up the hill and although lovely, is threatened with closure ... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Incidentally, the chapel had something of a mini-revival a few years ago with quite a significant impact on the village - thriving yoof work all of a sudden, divorcees and single women in particular finding faith and a welcome there ...
Then it all turned in on itself and they effectively devoured themselves and the minister - there were rights and wrongs on both sides ...
When the Baptist way of doing things works well, it works well ...
But when it all goes badly wrong then there's nothing worse than the sight of a Baptist congregation at war with itself ...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Only now are the wounds beginning to heal ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The last President of Conference was very much in favour of being an 'order' within the CofE or wider Anglican Communion. John Wesley would certainy have approved.
The CofE name would be just right for the groupings together you mention in your final paragraph, maybe 'Anglican' when abroad.
I would advocate the widest possible membership - as previosly stated, I dislike exclusivity.
Yes, in terms of a union with the Methodist Church, I understand that the Methodists would simply exist as a group within the CofE. But that's not what I was talking about originally. In terms of a union with a wider network of churches, retaining the CofE name assumes that all the other groups would want to exist under the cover of the CofE. This may not be so. To my mind, it would be better if another more neutral name could be found for the grouped network of churches, and the term CofE would be used by the group of people who use it now. This wouldn't be about exclusivity, but about choice and equality.
If we all wanted to be called Anglicans we could just join the CofE now, and all the discussions about equality would be irrelevant!
I realise, however, that unless we're talking about full-blown disestablishment, the name might be a legal issue.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not carrying a candle for the Anglican way, particularly, Exclamation Mark, nor am I dissing the Baptist way ... but I can't say I've noticed the tendency for CofE parishes 'only' be interested in the wider community when there are funds to be raised.
For all their differences, strengths, weaknesses and quirks, both the CofE parishes in this town seem genuinely interested in serving the community. Ok, so they hire out their halls and facilities but what's wrong with that? They charge an economic rate and aren't out to rip people off.
I do have a bit of an issue with the cost of wedding charges and so on but hereabouts the two Anglican churches do seek to serve the wider community in all sorts of ways - as indeed do the other churches in town. I wouldn't get snarky about any of them in this respect ...
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
After qualifying as a lawyer in Uganda of course.
+Sentamu is not posh in the sense of public school and Oxbridge like Archbishops have traditionally been. But nor was +Carey and (apart from the Oxbridge bit, and that's because he's clever) nor is +Rowan. +Runcie was middle class but Liverpudlian, which made a change.
And ++Robert Runcie was technically a gent in that he had been an officer in the Scots Guards.
He had quite an amazing ability to switch persona depending on to whom he was speaking. He was a mimic, and could entertain for hours. He knew what was what, and could camp it up with the best tat queen.
On a visit to his old college (Cuddesdon) a student was unnecessarily rude. When the archbishop asked the student in casual conversation what he was giving up for Lent, he just said 'wanking'.
'Ah, then what a sublime Easter Week' replied Robert as he floated by.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But when it all goes badly wrong then there's nothing worse than the sight of a Baptist congregation at war with itself ...
Only now are the wounds beginning to heal ...
I was reading somewhere that schism and high turnover often go hand in hand with an atmosphere of high church attendance and engagement. Thriving Christian communities aren't necessarily neat, tidy places where everyone stays at the same church happily for 30-odd years. For example, John Wesley experienced a lot of failure, and many of the church groups he founded were faced with inner conflicts, expulsions and power struggles; many closed down after a fairly short time. But there was still
much vigour and vitality around.
Of course, sometimes you have the kind of conflict that saps energy and is ultimately destructive of faith.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
"gathered" is a term currently used to describe a congregation that comes together because the members want to meet with each other. It is used to distinguish such congregations from those which are composed of people who happen to live in proximity with each other. A "gathered" church could have a degree (though not necessarily a high degree) of agreement on what its members believe -- but the agreement could just as easily be about what kind of social work they support (and belief be hanged) or what colour they like the hangings to be. The other kind need have no agreement at all about anything, least of all what they believe.
The CofE is just about the last refuge of the non-"gathered" church in the world. I suppose historically, every christian in England ought to be forced to attend the CofE and accept what's offered there -- that would indeed be the theory put into real action.
Even those churches which profess the same theory -- dividing territory into parishes which cover the whole -- in practice are "gathered". My neighbour, who live in the parish of Good Shepherd RC (or St-Claud if French-speaking) doesn't for a moment worry about his invariable attendence at HOly Cross or St. Joseph's -- and in fact neither does his nominal parish priest, or the good Brothers (Holy Cross) or Oblates (St. Joe's).
And, in Canada at least, the Anglicans are a "gathered" church, as they are in Australia and just about everywhere (including Scotland and Wales) outside England.
I don't see the problem with being "gathered -- especially as the CofE doesn't really do it itself in any place with more than one church within driving/walking distance.
John
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The state churches of Scandanavia (establised more or less altough this vairies and is changing) and not 'gathered'.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not carrying a candle for the Anglican way, particularly, Exclamation Mark, nor am I dissing the Baptist way ... but I can't say I've noticed the tendency for CofE parishes 'only' be interested in the wider community when there are funds to be raised.
For all their differences, strengths, weaknesses and quirks, both the CofE parishes in this town seem genuinely interested in serving the community. Ok, so they hire out their halls and facilities but what's wrong with that? They charge an economic rate and aren't out to rip people off.
I do have a bit of an issue with the cost of wedding charges and so on but hereabouts the two Anglican churches do seek to serve the wider community in all sorts of ways - as indeed do the other churches in town. I wouldn't get snarky about any of them in this respect ...
Yes I've come across that before but sadly my most recent experience was as noted above. In addition the (ahem well known) cofe church wanted a big say in ecumenical stuff but never turned out to support it.
I agree about baptist churches when it all goes wrong. I've seena couple arther too close for comfort but also was part of one that grew a lot over 10 years or so and is still impacting its community for good. I was sad to leave it tbh.
Bcak to the Op -- there's so much that the cofe might do and could do but needs to make a decision to do it. IMHO at national level that's almost like asking for the impossible whoever is in charge (and I think John York would be great) but it's to the local level we have to look. provided the local cofe church is prepared to do what it takes irrespective of central control then that's fine but when they don't then I can't see change.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I don't see the problem with being "gathered -- especially as the CofE doesn't really do it itself in any place with more than one church within driving/walking distance.
John
I don't see a problem either - unless it means only my lot is saved.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I don't see the problem with being "gathered -- especially as the CofE doesn't really do it itself in any place with more than one church within driving/walking distance.
There is a tension, because as you point out many C of E churches, especially in cities and even more especially those with a distinctive 'tradition', operate more on the gathered model than as a community church. But I suspect there are very few where the 'community' ideal doesn't figure at all, and most parish priests are very aware of their responsibilities to all and sundry.
Of course other churches often see themselves as having similar responsibilities. Establishment just ensures that it is part and parcel of the C of E's DNA. If we were disestablished I don't suppose it would fade away for a long time if ever.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Exclamation Mark, yes, the mileage varies. I was happily involved with a Baptist church for six years after leaving the restorationist ambit - and I was very sorry indeed when we had to leave through moving to another area for work/family reasons.
My previous experience with Baptist churches hadn't been uniformly positive though ...
On the Anglican thing, I can understand how Free Church and other non-Anglican churches and ministers/priests/leaders can find the CofE rather arrogant at times - but this isn't an impression I get from the 'inside' as it were ... most Anglican clergy I come across are very ecumenical and eirenic, irrespective of whichever 'churchmanship' they themselves espouse.
I will say that there is a tendency among some (particularly larger or more 'successful') Anglican churches not to pull their weight when it comes to ecumenical initiatives. Sadly, a lot of evangelical Anglicans come into this category too, in my experience - not because they are indifferent or arrogant towards the other churches so much as it doesn't actually occur to them to get involved or to support other initiatives - they've got their own services and their house-groups and so on on, thank you very much, so why should they bother with any one else's ...?
In my experience, though, the clergy themselves try to act differently to that and to encourage a broader perspective and good relationships with other churches.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
While I'm on, could a kindly Host remove the post I wrote having a bit of a snarky go at Zach82?
It was uncalled for and too Hellish.
I seem unable to communicate with him by PM at the moment but I would like to publicly apologise to him. If there's some way of a Host acting as an intemediary and passing on my sincere apologies, would they mind doing so?
Pax.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Pelly, I am not personally responsible for everything wrong in the Anglican Communion...
I was not suggesting you were. What I was suggesting is that I think the "our way or none" taken by both ECUSA and Sydney and its allies has definitely helped to bring about the current de facto schism in the Communion.
You may like to know that, except for a couple of other dioceses in Australia, and fairly minor ones at that, most other places here have reservations about accepting Moore Theological College graduates for clerical positions unless they adhere to certain undertakings.
I am quite mystified as to why ECUSA ever agreed to any extent to consider the Anglican Covenant. ++ Williams seems to have suffered grievously and unfairly at the hands of some American commentators on this.
It seems very sad that the difference between what I would see as the two extremes here seems to be over sex, pure and simple. Nothing else seems half as important. Christianity is not, primarily, about sex.
Re snarkiness: I think we both have had our moments. Perhaps it is my time to cool down.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Many C of E churches, especially in cities and even more especially those with a distinctive 'tradition', operate more on the gathered model than as a community church. But I suspect there are very few where the 'community' ideal doesn't figure at all, and most parish priests are very aware of their responsibilities to all and sundry.
Of course other churches often see themselves as having similar responsibilities. Establishment just ensures that it is part and parcel of the C of E's DNA. If we were disestablished I don't suppose it would fade away for a long time if ever.
These days, it seems as though operating on a 'community' model is essential for most churches, because that's one of the fews ways they have to promote themselves. It's probably even more important outside the CofE, because smaller denominations don't have the luxury of being the default option, and unless they offer various community activities then people won't know that they exist.
However, I think the CofE clearly benefits from having more money than other denominations. More money to keep churches open, more money to support various community projects. If the CofE were disestablished I presume its finances would be untouched to a large extent, so this advantage would remain. Finances would become a problem, though, if the disestablished church chose to split.
I wonder what Archbishop Sentamu's views are on disestablishment.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I was not suggesting you were. What I was suggesting is that I think the "our way or none" taken by both ECUSA and Sydney and its allies has definitely helped to bring about the current de facto schism in the Communion.
Which makes your silly vendetta all the more absurd, since my only expectation is that TEC be permitted to continue coming to the table. I am not calling for anyone to be kicked out of the communion. You are- for an issue you pretend isn't important.
It seems to me you are the one saying "My way, or the highway," which makes you the extremist. "Who's the extremist" is a pathetic game, but it seems to be the only game you want to play.
So tell me. If you are arguing that TEC should be kicked out of the Communion for not agreeing with you on matters of sexuality, what IS the more extreme view?
Or is one only an extremist if one is a liberal?
quote:
Re snarkiness: I think we both have had our moments. Perhaps it is my time to cool down.
No, you had a moment. You've been having one for years every time our paths cross. Get. Over it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
No, you had a moment. You've been having one for years every time our paths cross. Get. Over it.
I suppose I could have interpreted your last sentence more charitably, Pellinore. Sorry.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Zach82 - I've tried to PM and it doesn't work - you may have removed the 'ignore' function but it doesn't seem to have activated at my end.
Anyhow, I'll publicly apologise to you here. I had no right to interfere in the debate between Sir Pellinore and yourself. I was trigger-happy and hadn't thought things through.
I over-react sometimes to aspects of my own past history and sometimes shoot at people who remind me of that, even though they might not fit the profile I'm imagining for them. My bad, as the Americans say ...
Please accept my apology. I will not harass you in future. If I do find myself disagreeing with you over anything in future (and I do agree with many of your posts, by the way) I will endeavour to express myself more appropriately and to listen before firing off at half-cock.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I don't see the problem with being "gathered -- especially as the CofE doesn't really do it itself in any place with more than one church within driving/walking distance.
John
I don't see a problem either - unless it means only my lot is saved.
A perhaps better way of putting it would be that those 'gathered' hold to a specific set of beliefs and/or practices. That has strengths as well as weaknesses of course.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I don't see the problem with being "gathered -- especially as the CofE doesn't really do it itself in any place with more than one church within driving/walking distance.
John
I don't see a problem either - unless it means only my lot is saved.
A perhaps better way of putting it would be that those 'gathered' hold to a specific set of beliefs and/or practices. That has strengths as well as weaknesses of course.
Is a "gathered" church a "confessional" church, then? We do have many denominational churches in the United States that have specific lists of beliefs to which members must give assent, as well as dress codes for lay worshipers, tithing requirements, and so on.
My own understanding of the Anglican tradition is that it is not "confessional" in the sense given above, and never has been. ["What, never?" "Well... hardly ever."] We have accepted -- at our best, at any rate -- that there may be disagreement among laity and clergy, even on important doctrinal points, and yet they may all continue to worship together.
It has become increasingly difficult to hold on to this ideal in a polarized political atmosphere, such as afflicts the United States, especially because religion so easily becomes political. It seems to me, however, that something quite precious would be lost out of the world, if this distinctive note of Anglicanism were to be lost, and the Anglicans were to become a sect like any other.
Some have alleged that the modern system of pluralist democracy, which allows people with different beliefs to live and work together under a government all accept as legitimate, had its origins in the terms of the Elizabethan Settlement, imperfect as they were. FWIW, I accept this account. So it seems to me that to go the way of the "gathered church" signals the failure of the project of pluralist democracy. [Well, perhaps it has.]
Memo to Sir Pellinore: This is why some of us in the US Episcopal Church get a little squirrely when you accuse us of "my way or the highway" tactics. The pluralism of our tradition has been preached at us, in season and out of season, from our great-grandparents' earliest youth, and it has become deeply rooted in Episcopalian "DNA" -- certain allegations by certain bloggers to the contrary. I don't doubt there's a doctrinaire liberal or two in the House of Deputies, but they aren't representative of the whole in the United States.
[ 15. August 2012, 15:36: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the CofE were disestablished I presume its finances would be untouched to a large extent, so this advantage would remain.
Unlikely. When the Church in Wales was disestablished, all its endowments were confiscated.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the CofE were disestablished I presume its finances would be untouched to a large extent, so this advantage would remain.
Unlikely. When the Church in Wales was disestablished, all its endowments were confiscated.
And yet, as far as I know, it still functions in many ways as a de facto established church. So money hasn't got a lot to do with it.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the CofE were disestablished I presume its finances would be untouched to a large extent, so this advantage would remain.
Unlikely. When the Church in Wales was disestablished, all its endowments were confiscated.
What's the source/origin/history of these endowments? How are they being used now?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Glebe land. Pays clergy pensions and part salaries.
multi millions - see here.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Originally posted by Grammatica: quote:
Is a "gathered" church a "confessional" church, then? We do have many denominational churches in the United States that have specific lists of beliefs to which members must give assent, as well as dress codes for lay worshipers, tithing requirements, and so on
My understanding is that a "gathered church" is one which understands that "the church should comprise only those who have freely responded to the gospel and voluntarily accepted the responsibilities of membership." (The dissenting ethos)
If I've understood Anglicanism correctly (and, given that my understanding is based on the works of Susan Howatch, modified slightly by D.M Greenwood and Kate Charles, it probably isn't), then it would seem that membership of the Church of England (following confirmation) is dependent on "[assenting to] specific lists of beliefs", it's just that they happen to (think they) have another role as the instrument of English* civic religion...
*Whatever that is...
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Originally posted by Grammatica: quote:
Is a "gathered" church a "confessional" church, then? We do have many denominational churches in the United States that have specific lists of beliefs to which members must give assent, as well as dress codes for lay worshipers, tithing requirements, and so on
My understanding is that a "gathered church" is one which understands that "the church should comprise only those who have freely responded to the gospel and voluntarily accepted the responsibilities of membership." (The dissenting ethos)
If I've understood Anglicanism correctly (and, given that my understanding is based on the works of Susan Howatch, modified slightly by D.M Greenwood and Kate Charles, it probably isn't), then it would seem that membership of the Church of England (following confirmation) is dependent on "[assenting to] specific lists of beliefs", it's just that they happen to (think they) have another role as the instrument of English* civic religion...
*Whatever that is...
No, I don't think, in fact, that you have understood it correctly.
As far as the Church of England is concerned, the members on these boards can explain it to you much better than I.
As far as the US Episcopal Church goes -- and I am a lifelong member -- membership is based on nothing of the kind, and few of us would have it any other way.
Confirmation is no longer required for full membership.
I think you are bringing a "dissenting ethos" to the church from which the dissenters, um, dissented -- because the church did not follow their dissenting ethos.
[ 15. August 2012, 19:55: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
No, you had a moment. You've been having one for years every time our paths cross. Get. Over it.
I suppose I could have interpreted your last sentence more charitably, Pellinore. Sorry.
No probs, Zach. I think I deserve to apologise to you for being a bit of a shit. Sorry.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
...
Memo to Sir Pellinore: This is why some of us in the US Episcopal Church get a little squirrely when you accuse us of "my way or the highway" tactics. The pluralism of our tradition has been preached at us, in season and out of season, from our great-grandparents' earliest youth, and it has become deeply rooted in Episcopalian "DNA" -- certain allegations by certain bloggers to the contrary. I don't doubt there's a doctrinaire liberal or two in the House of Deputies, but they aren't representative of the whole in the United States.
Actually, I was referring not just to the official spokespeople from ECUSA but also those from Sydney and its allies on this issue. I saw both sets of official spokespeople as being as intransigent as each other.
Having lived in the Archdiocese of Sydney for many years I know it is not a pluralist diocese and I think the man who currently heads it would see the Elizabethan Church Settlement as a mere necessary compromise that he feels needs to be moved on from. Fortunately, his attempts to do so seem to have blown up in his face.
My understanding is that the public spat between Sydney and its allies and ECUSA and ACC is to do with the practice of human sexuality which strikes me as terribly, terribly sad, even morbid.
The Anglican Communion, as I understand it, is a loose federation where the Archbishop of Canterbury may have a primacy of honour but no real power. Long may it remain that way.
I think what exists today in the various Provinces of the Communion is not a simple, historic, generic, pluralist "Anglicanism" but a variety of "Anglicanisms", some of which appear to be in violent conflict. People have caused this conflict.
My feeling is that the different provinces need to look to their own houses and not to Canterbury, or anywhere else, to sort things out. Sydney, post-Jensen, may be a different setup. The former Bishop of New Hampshire, a rather unlikely controversial figure, has retired, as has ++ Williams. I think what is currently needed is a long cooling down period.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the CofE were disestablished I presume its finances would be untouched to a large extent, so this advantage would remain.
Unlikely. When the Church in Wales was disestablished, all its endowments were confiscated.
And yet, as far as I know, it still functions in many ways as a de facto established church. So money hasn't got a lot to do with it.
So who pays for the upkeep of large churches with only small congregations, then?
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
...
Memo to Sir Pellinore: This is why some of us in the US Episcopal Church get a little squirrely when you accuse us of "my way or the highway" tactics. The pluralism of our tradition has been preached at us, in season and out of season, from our great-grandparents' earliest youth, and it has become deeply rooted in Episcopalian "DNA" -- certain allegations by certain bloggers to the contrary. I don't doubt there's a doctrinaire liberal or two in the House of Deputies, but they aren't representative of the whole in the United States.
Actually, I was referring not just to the official spokespeople from ECUSA but also those from Sydney and its allies on this issue. I saw both sets of official spokespeople as being as intransigent as each other.
Having lived in the Archdiocese of Sydney for many years I know it is not a pluralist diocese and I think the man who currently heads it would see the Elizabethan Church Settlement as a mere necessary compromise that he feels needs to be moved on from. Fortunately, his attempts to do so seem to have blown up in his face.
My understanding is that the public spat between Sydney and its allies and ECUSA and ACC is to do with the practice of human sexuality which strikes me as terribly, terribly sad, even morbid.
The Anglican Communion, as I understand it, is a loose federation where the Archbishop of Canterbury may have a primacy of honour but no real power. Long may it remain that way.
I think what exists today in the various Provinces of the Communion is not a simple, historic, generic, pluralist "Anglicanism" but a variety of "Anglicanisms", some of which appear to be in violent conflict. People have caused this conflict.
My feeling is that the different provinces need to look to their own houses and not to Canterbury, or anywhere else, to sort things out. Sydney, post-Jensen, may be a different setup. The former Bishop of New Hampshire, a rather unlikely controversial figure, has retired, as has ++ Williams. I think what is currently needed is a long cooling down period.
Actually, there's not much of this I'd disagree with, Sir Pellinore. However, though I may be alone in thinking that human sexuality issues were pretexts for the quarrel rather than reasons for it, it is what I think.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
If I've understood Anglicanism correctly (and, given that my understanding is based on the works of Susan Howatch, modified slightly by D.M Greenwood and Kate Charles, it probably isn't), then it would seem that membership of the Church of England (following confirmation) is dependent on "[assenting to] specific lists of beliefs", it's just that they happen to (think they) have another role as the instrument of English* civic religion...
*Whatever that is...
No, I don't think, in fact, that you have understood it correctly.
As far as the Church of England is concerned, the members on these boards can explain it to you much better than I.
I'm not aware that the C of E has any concept of 'membership' other than all the baptised. Confirmation is certainly not the equivalent of being admitted to membership.
Any adult (over 16) who is entered onto the electoral roll of the parish is entitled to vote for representatives in Synods. For practical purposes that might count as 'membership' in some contexts. But we don't have a strict 'who's in and who's out' qualification.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Would I right in thinking that any resident in a parish, whether baptized or not, has the right of a wedding or a funeral in the parish church?
In one sense this is lovely and inclusive.
In another it is anti democratic because it means the "members" are not expected to have more than token commitment and "the church" is therefore in effect the clergy, who are responsible for any decisions. The "membership" is totally passive.
(Sorry if this is de-railing. I hope someone can give another spin. Maybe another thread sometimne, although I doubt I'll have much stomach for it.)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
@ Grammatica and Angloid: what about the requirements for receiving communion, though?
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
venbede - Yes you are right, it applies to baptism, weddings and funerals.
As for membership, being on the electoral roll of a church gives voting rights and allows someone to stand for an elected role such as churchwarden or pcc member. However, anyone who lives in a parish can be on the electoral roll whether or not they attend the church. Those from outside the parish need to establish regular attendance at worship for at least six months before they can be on the electoral roll. Also anyone in the parish can vote at the annual election for churchwardens whether or not they are on the electoral roll. AFAIK anyway.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
anyone who lives in a parish can be on the electoral roll whether or not they attend the church.
provided they are baptised and not a member of a church not in communion with the C of E (Again, IIRC)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Would I right in thinking that any resident in a parish, whether baptized or not, has the right of a wedding or a funeral in the parish church?
In one sense this is lovely and inclusive.
In another it is anti democratic because it means the "members" are not expected to have more than token commitment and "the church" is therefore in effect the clergy, who are responsible for any decisions. The "membership" is totally passive.
This strikes me as a very astute comment.
It's not so much a question of being on the electoral rolls, as mentioned above, but of church culture.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
And a parish AGM (at which the electoral role members can vote for the Church Council and so on) is preceded by the Vestry Meeting at which the churchwardens are voted. The Vestry, as I remember, can be attended by any resident parishioner who can therefore vote.
I was at a parish where we had a strong suspicion residents were bussed in by a would-be churchwarden.
In one sense, that's nice and inclusive. In another it's scandalous. Like Establishment itself.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
@ Grammatica and Angloid: what about the requirements for receiving communion, though?
Baptism and in some cases confirmation AFAIK, although in practice there's no way of checking up on this - certainly there's no request for a letter of recommendation first.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I would see that as a weakness on balance.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would see that as a weakness on balance.
Confirmation was formerly required to take the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church (US), but it has not been required for some time.
I would see this as a weakness in one sense: it inhibits the formation of adult converts who come to us from other, "confessional" churches with strict rules as to what can and can't be believed or worn or done. Adult converts of this type are fairly common in the Southern US, because down here the idea persists that Episcopalians are higher up on the social scale than Baptists or Methodists. (Don't shoot me; I'm just the messenger.)
After a few weeks of "what a nice service," they start wanting to know why we aren't more restrictive in membership, why we don't demand members sign up to a lengthy statement of beliefs, etc. etc. To say: "Because the churches in the Anglican/Episcopalian traditions are not, emphatically not "confessional" churches" will not cut any ice with that crowd. They will either try to change us into a "confessional" church of the kind they are used to, or they will leave, saying that we aren't really Christians at all. This is all very tiresome.
Baptism continues to be required of communicants in the Episcopal Church. Despite. blog-fuelled. rumors. to. the. contrary.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
After a few weeks of "what a nice service," they start wanting to know why we aren't more restrictive in membership, why we don't demand members sign up to a lengthy statement of beliefs, etc. etc. To say: "Because the churches in the Anglican/Episcopalian traditions are not, emphatically not "confessional" churches" will not cut any ice with that crowd. They will either try to change us into a "confessional" church of the kind they are used to, or they will leave, saying that we aren't really Christians at all. This is all very tiresome.
Baptism continues to be required of communicants in the Episcopal Church. Despite. blog-fuelled. rumors. to. the. contrary.
I'm surprised that those people choose to visit your church in the first place. What a waste of their time to come along and try to 'change' a denomination whose perspective is so well-established!
Maybe the church should provide a short leaflet to hand out to visitors, to give them a little idea as to what to expect. Or you could have an explanatory poster put up in your foyer.
As for Communion, in the British Methodist church everyone is allowed to receive, baptised or not. So we have even fewer rules on this than you do!
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would see that as a weakness on balance.
Confirmation was formerly required to take the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church (US), but it has not been required for some time.
I would see this as a weakness in one sense: it inhibits the formation of adult converts who come to us from other, "confessional" churches with strict rules as to what can and can't be believed or worn or done. Adult converts of this type are fairly common in the Southern US, because down here the idea persists that Episcopalians are higher up on the social scale than Baptists or Methodists. (Don't shoot me; I'm just the messenger.)
After a few weeks of "what a nice service," they start wanting to know why we aren't more restrictive in membership, why we don't demand members sign up to a lengthy statement of beliefs, etc. etc. To say: "Because the churches in the Anglican/Episcopalian traditions are not, emphatically not "confessional" churches" will not cut any ice with that crowd. They will either try to change us into a "confessional" church of the kind they are used to, or they will leave, saying that we aren't really Christians at all. This is all very tiresome.
Baptism continues to be required of communicants in the Episcopal Church. Despite. blog-fuelled. rumors. to. the. contrary.
The jury seems to be out ATM in the CofE on the whole restricting communion to the confirmed. I would prefer to see it thus with the caveat for visitors that those who are in 'good-standing' with their home churches/ receive communion in their home churches are welcome to communicate.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I can;t remember ever being in any Church of England church that tried to restrict communion or other active membership to people who signed up to some statement of faith or who passed any test at all. Basically you turn up and you are in. Turn up every week ansd they start putting you on rotas if you aren't careful .
Of course they might not actually talk to you, or have anything to do with you outside Sunday services and they almost certainly won't invite you to their homes (we are English after all - socialising is done in pubs if you are a bloke, and who knows where if you aren't), but they wouldn't dream of excluding you from communion.
That applies from the highest end of the candle (helf-adozen rather dodgy churches in Brighton (well, Hove, actually), ditto in Deptford and Lewisham (including the HQ of Forward in Faith)) to the lowest (Jesmond parish church, the church I went to as a teenager in Brighton, the church I am at now the way it was before its brief flirtation with charismaticism in the 1990s.) No-one gets tested before being allowed in.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Isn't giving communion to the unbaptized like icing without a cake? I can understand doing without sacraments like the Quakers or Salvation Army, but communion without baptism is just missing the point.
The BCP 1662 states that communion should be for those confirmed or desirous to be confirmed.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
After a few weeks of "what a nice service," they start wanting to know why we aren't more restrictive in membership, why we don't demand members sign up to a lengthy statement of beliefs, etc. etc. To say: "Because the churches in the Anglican/Episcopalian traditions are not, emphatically not "confessional" churches" will not cut any ice with that crowd. They will either try to change us into a "confessional" church of the kind they are used to, or they will leave, saying that we aren't really Christians at all. This is all very tiresome.
Baptism continues to be required of communicants in the Episcopal Church. Despite. blog-fuelled. rumors. to. the. contrary.
I'm surprised that those people choose to visit your church in the first place. What a waste of their time to come along and try to 'change' a denomination whose perspective is so well-established!
Maybe the church should provide a short leaflet to hand out to visitors, to give them a little idea as to what to expect. Or you could have an explanatory poster put up in your foyer.
As for Communion, in the British Methodist church everyone is allowed to receive, baptised or not. So we have even fewer rules on this than you do!
Actually, most of our churches do provide those leaflets. They don't help.
Why do they visit? See above for the social status which supposedly accrues to members of the Episcopal Church (US). I stress "supposedly." I really don't know if that's true any more. The church with greatest status locally seems to be a nondenominational Bible church with one of those "dynamic" young pastors. At least, that's the church all the political figures seem to want to belong to now. The United Methodists have the second largest number of political figures in their congregation. The Southern Baptists are a perennial flower.
But it's also true that the brand-new Episcopalians believe they know what Christians are, and how to be Christians, and how to do Christian workshop. Of course they think we should change, because we aren't like them, and if we aren't like them, then we aren't really Christians. Our traditions and history mean nothing to them -- those things are "of man." The fact that most of their innovations in doctrine and worship date back a mere couple of centuries means nothing to them either. "In my Bible it says" is a sufficient answer to any such argument.
I can get a little pissy about "Evangelicals," and that's one of the reasons, yes.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Isn't giving communion to the unbaptized like icing without a cake?
Well, yes, which is why the Episcopal Church (USA) doesn't do it. Does. Not. Do. It. Blog-fed. Rumors. To. The. Contrary.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
After a few weeks of "what a nice service," they start wanting to know why we aren't more restrictive in membership, why we don't demand members sign up to a lengthy statement of beliefs, etc. etc. To say: "Because the churches in the Anglican/Episcopalian traditions are not, emphatically not "confessional" churches" will not cut any ice with that crowd. They will either try to change us into a "confessional" church of the kind they are used to, or they will leave, saying that we aren't really Christians at all. This is all very tiresome.
Baptism continues to be required of communicants in the Episcopal Church. Despite. blog-fuelled. rumors. to. the. contrary.
I'm surprised that those people choose to visit your church in the first place. What a waste of their time to come along and try to 'change' a denomination whose perspective is so well-established!
Maybe the church should provide a short leaflet to hand out to visitors, to give them a little idea as to what to expect. Or you could have an explanatory poster put up in your foyer.
As for Communion, in the British Methodist church everyone is allowed to receive, baptised or not. So we have even fewer rules on this than you do!
Actually, most of our churches do provide those leaflets. They don't help.
Why do they visit? See above for the social status which supposedly accrues to members of the Episcopal Church (US). I stress "supposedly." I really don't know if that's true any more. The church with greatest status locally seems to be a nondenominational Bible church with one of those "dynamic" young pastors. At least, that's the church all the political figures seem to want to belong to now. The United Methodists have the second largest number of political figures in their congregation. The Southern Baptists are a perennial flower.
But it's also true that the brand-new Episcopalians believe they know what Christians are, and how to be Christians, and how to do Christian worship. Of course they think we should change, because we aren't like them, and if we aren't like them, then we aren't really Christians. Our traditions and history mean nothing to them -- those things are "of man." The fact that most of their innovations in doctrine and worship date back a mere couple of centuries means nothing to them either. "In my Bible it says" is a sufficient answer to any such argument.
I can get a little pissy about "Evangelicals," and that's one of the reasons, yes.
[Auto-correct is of the Devil.]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Isn't giving communion to the unbaptized like icing without a cake?
Well, yes, which is why the Episcopal Church (USA) doesn't do it. Does. Not. Do. It. Blog-fed. Rumors. To. The. Contrary.
I'd never heard anything to the contrary, Grammatica. But I do lead a very sheltered life.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
See above for the social status which supposedly accrues to members of the Episcopal Church (US). I stress "supposedly." I really don't know if that's true any more. The church with greatest status locally seems to be a nondenominational Bible church with one of those "dynamic" young pastors. At least, that's the church all the political figures seem to want to belong to now. The United Methodists have the second largest number of political figures in their congregation. The Southern Baptists are a perennial flower.
But it's also true that the brand-new Episcopalians believe they know what Christians are, and how to be Christians, and how to do Christian workshop. Of course they think we should change, because we aren't like them, and if we aren't like them, then we aren't really Christians.
When you say 'brand-new Episcopalians', do you mean people who are just visiting, or those who have seriously tried to commit to your denomination? Because I don't understand why they would try to commit to the Episcopalian church if they feel that Episcopalians aren't Christians. It's not as though your country doesn't provide plenty of alternative churches!
I can understand that upwardly mobile Christians might want to join a church with a supposedly higher social status. Perhaps for these visitors the apparent longevity of Anglicanism and its worldwide influence is appealing. But they need to decide what their priority is: their theology, or their desire for social status.
According to the sociologists, churches tend to become more tolerant in certain respects (stricter in others) as they rise in social status. (Of course, it's relative; the local nondenominational church won't be as tolerant as your church, but it may be more tolerant than it was when it started out.)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The jury seems to be out ATM in the CofE on the whole restricting communion to the confirmed. I would prefer to see it thus with the caveat for visitors that those who are in 'good-standing' with their home churches/ receive communion in their home churches are welcome to communicate.
Jury not out but finished. Official C of E policy is to allow those in 'good standing' to communicate.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The jury seems to be out ATM in the CofE on the whole restricting communion to the confirmed. I would prefer to see it thus with the caveat for visitors that those who are in 'good-standing' with their home churches/ receive communion in their home churches are welcome to communicate.
Jury not out but finished. Official C of E policy is to allow those in 'good standing' to communicate.
And unofficial policy in just about every church I've been in since the 1970s. George Carey used to make it quite explicit at St Nick's, welcoming everybody.
As for the unconfirmed, its the practice of our chruch for the unconfirmed not to go up for communion but no-one woould stop them, or even notice, if they did (IYSWIM).
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The jury seems to be out ATM in the CofE on the whole restricting communion to the confirmed. I would prefer to see it thus with the caveat for visitors that those who are in 'good-standing' with their home churches/ receive communion in their home churches are welcome to communicate.
Jury not out but finished. Official C of E policy is to allow those in 'good standing' to communicate.
The announcements at our gaffe at communion tend to be "if you're confirmed in the CofE or normally receive communion at your own church if visiting, then you're welcome to receive communion here; otherwise please still come up for a blessing".
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I was at a parish where we had a strong suspicion residents were bussed in by a would-be churchwarden.
I know of a parish where a churchwarden brought in his (non believing/non churchgoing) friends from the village to vote for him. They did and he got elected with 6 votes above a candidate who received all their votes from within the church community.
The incumbent - a close friend of mine - resigned as his new churchwarden could hardly be asid to be an active "believer" in what he was wardening.
It's just as bad as churches where there is a Viacrs and a People's warden. In that case the Vicar chooses one - often a close chum sadly.
In another parish - the one in which I resided - I was personally invited to attend the apm. Rather fun as I was an kind of office holder in another church in another denomination.
As regards entry to communion and membership, surely any requirement is all but shot these days. Who checks up on baptismal/confirmation records? Does anyone ask at the rail for example? Who is to know that you are taking communion when you're not confirmed, save perhaps you and God?
And, if your belief system reflects where your heart is with God as opposed to any confirmatory (physical, external) ceremony, would God be bovvered anyway? If he isn't, why should anyone else be?
It all points towards an inclusive church that can only be a good thing.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I was at a parish where we had a strong suspicion residents were bussed in by a would-be churchwarden.
I know of a parish where a churchwarden brought in his (non believing/non churchgoing) friends from the village to vote for him. They did and he got elected with 6 votes above a candidate who received all their votes from within the church community.
The incumbent - a close friend of mine - resigned as his new churchwarden could hardly be asid to be an active "believer" in what he was wardening.
It's just as bad as churches where there is a Viacrs and a People's warden. In that case the Vicar chooses one - often a close chum sadly.
In another parish - the one in which I resided - I was personally invited to attend the apm. Rather fun as I was an kind of office holder in another church in another denomination.
As regards entry to communion and membership, surely any requirement is all but shot these days. Who checks up on baptismal/confirmation records? Does anyone ask at the rail for example? Who is to know that you are taking communion when you're not confirmed, save perhaps you and God?
And, if your belief system reflects where your heart is with God as opposed to any confirmatory (physical, external) ceremony, would God be bovvered anyway? If he isn't, why should anyone else be?
It all points towards an inclusive church that can only be a good thing.
Your last sentence supports what you say about Communion, but not what you say about the appointment of churchwardens. On that point, you seem to be resentful of the 'inclusivity' that allows non-believers and best chums being brought in specially in order to influence the proceedings. Or maybe I've misunderstood you.
[ 16. August 2012, 15:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
Nowadays People's Warden and Vicar's Warden are redundant and meaningless titles in the CofE. Under Church law since 2001 they both have to be elected at the annual parish meeting. A vicar can no longer appoint his chum.
Ironically it was the dissenters who historically made use of the right of all residents to vote, especially where there were arguments about the levying of a church rate.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
There are circumstances in which parishioners can be liable for some church repairs. I don't understand exactly how it works but it's related to ownership of land. This Church Times report explains how it affects the duties of a PCC:
quote:
Many clerics believe that the liability is a relic, and that enforcing it will harm the Church's mission; but the General Synod's legal advisory commission warns that PCCs "are not free to give effect to obligations of a purely moral nature".
In a guidance note, it says: "The right to enforce chancel repair liability is vested in the PCC of the parish concerned. The right to enforce chancel repair liability therefore effectively represents an asset of the PCC."
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The jury seems to be out ATM in the CofE on the whole restricting communion to the confirmed. I would prefer to see it thus with the caveat for visitors that those who are in 'good-standing' with their home churches/ receive communion in their home churches are welcome to communicate.
Jury not out but finished. Official C of E policy is to allow those in 'good standing' to communicate.
And unofficial policy in just about every church I've been in since the 1970s. George Carey used to make it quite explicit at St Nick's, welcoming everybody.
As for the unconfirmed, its the practice of our chruch for the unconfirmed not to go up for communion but no-one woould stop them, or even notice, if they did (IYSWIM).
It isn't unofficial - it's in canon law quote:
Baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and are in good standing in their own Church shall be admitted to Communion in accordance with Canon B 15A.
See here. It goes back to 1972.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
And certainly for the last ten or fifteen years (if not longer) parishes have been allowed to admit baptised but unconfirmed children to communion after preparation. It's an option that has not been taken up in many places (such as ken's. evidently) for various reasons.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
At my last church children about 8/9 were admitted to communion without being confirmed, with the bishop's agreement.
So what Mark Bett's church should say is "those of you who would normally receive communion in your regular church"... To add confimation as a requirement is to exclude those Anglicans admitted to communion but not confirmed.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
...Actually, there's not much of this I'd disagree with, Sir Pellinore. However, though I may be alone in thinking that human sexuality issues were pretexts for the quarrel rather than reasons for it, it is what I think.
You could well be right, Grammatica.
The problem with the current situation in the Anglican Communion is that it is hard for the average person in the pew to see behind the dust created by the, sometimes quite vile, high level ecclesiastical politics.
The real movers and shakers in all the nonsense are high level clerics and they play politics as amorally as any ordinary politician.
The Anglican Church here is pretty hierarchical and I don't think an intelligent layperson would be allowed to have any important influence when the clergy make the big decisions.
In a way this disturbs me, because I see no counterweight to ecclesiastical power, especially if used incorrectly, that something like the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in your country seems to be attempting to be in regard to the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Many posters here are frustrated, and, dare I say it, disempowered laity, who can only look with horror on what the hierarchies of various countries are doing to the Communion.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And certainly for the last ten or fifteen years (if not longer) parishes have been allowed to admit baptised but unconfirmed children to communion after preparation. It's an option that has not been taken up in many places (such as ken's. evidently) for various reasons.
Its not that anyone stops anyone doing it, its just that they don't do it because its generally assumed that confirmation is admission to communion. I'm pretty sure we've had clergy telling new baptised but unconfirmed adult members that they can take communion, but they excluding themselvses till after confirmation, IYSWIM.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And certainly for the last ten or fifteen years (if not longer) parishes have been allowed to admit baptised but unconfirmed children to communion after preparation. It's an option that has not been taken up in many places (such as ken's. evidently) for various reasons.
Its not that anyone stops anyone doing it, its just that they don't do it because its generally assumed that confirmation is admission to communion. I'm pretty sure we've had clergy telling new baptised but unconfirmed adult members that they can take communion, but they excluding themselvses till after confirmation, IYSWIM.
Sorry to jump in here, but if adults are being baptised, is there any reason why they're not confirmed at the same time? (I was baptised and confirmed as an adult, and I don't remember there being any gap between the two. It wasn't in the CofE, of course.)
[ 17. August 2012, 15:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sorry to jump in here, but if adults are being baptised, is there any reason why they're not confirmed at the same time?
They usually are I think. Or at least often are. Not quite always, because we don't get to do our own confirmations, we have to wait for the big do with the bishop.
I was mainly thinking of those baptised as children who haven't been confirmed, and there are loads of those around. For people my age (50s) and a few decades older it might almost be the normal state - loads of people were baptised as babies in mid-20th-century in England who never saw the inside of a church again other than weddings and funerals.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And certainly for the last ten or fifteen years (if not longer) parishes have been allowed to admit baptised but unconfirmed children to communion after preparation. It's an option that has not been taken up in many places (such as ken's. evidently) for various reasons.
Its not that anyone stops anyone doing it, its just that they don't do it because its generally assumed that confirmation is admission to communion. I'm pretty sure we've had clergy telling new baptised but unconfirmed adult members that they can take communion, but they excluding themselvses till after confirmation, IYSWIM.
Sorry to jump in here, but if adults are being baptised, is there any reason why they're not confirmed at the same time? (I was baptised and confirmed as an adult, and I don't remember there being any gap between the two. It wasn't in the CofE, of course.)
I can think that the practical reason of arranging for the Bishop to be there might be one possibility, as Confirmation requires a Bishop and Baptism doesn't.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Isn't there provision for that similar to that possessed by a Catholic priest, viz that, at the Easter Vigil at least when receiving new members into the Catholic Church, he has delegated authority from the bishop to confirm as well as baptise adult converts?
Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sorry to jump in here, but if adults are being baptised, is there any reason why they're not confirmed at the same time?
They usually are I think. Or at least often are. Not quite always, because we don't get to do our own confirmations, we have to wait for the big do with the bishop.
I was mainly thinking of those baptised as children who haven't been confirmed, and there are loads of those around. For people my age (50s) and a few decades older it might almost be the normal state - loads of people were baptised as babies in mid-20th-century in England who never saw the inside of a church again other than weddings and funerals.
I was baptised as an adult and then confirmed about a year later, having moved churches in the meantime after relocating to a new part of the country).
I didn't think anything of it at the time, but I actually have no idea why the first do was a baptism only.
The baptism was done as part of the normal Sunday service, but the confirmation was at the local cathedral, on Easter Saturday, which was lovely.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Not in the C of E. Probably because we haven't sorted out what we mean by confirmation anyway. And because bishops seem to see confirmations as their one and only opportunity to make contact with ordinary people in ordinary parishes (despite the fact that if they didn't do confirmations they would have more time to meet with ordinary congregations at ordinary times in ordinary contexts)
[PS: answer to Matt Black in the penultimate post]
[ 17. August 2012, 17:15: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
The baptism was done as part of the normal Sunday service, but the confirmation was at the local cathedral, on Easter Saturday, which was lovely.
It was. And deeply impressed one two or three year old there who has had a soft spot for incense and candles ever since...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0