Thread: Anglicanism 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=027710
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Comprehensive inclusivity is Anglicanism's greatest strength. It is also its greatest weakness.
- Archbishop Roger Herft. Metropolitan of Perth, Australia.

Discuss
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
It is only a weakness when you get members who cannot accept that other people actually have the right to hold a differing opinion.

IOW everyone has to work on making it work.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
We revel in the tension which holds us together,
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Or it is in only in dialogue with those that are different from us, that we find out what unites us.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
For me, inclusiveness is its greatest strength as I can't abide the judgementalism that comes hand in hand with exclusivity.

It means in theory that all people will be embraced as loved by Christ, whatever their beliefs and attitudes, whatever their preferences for styles of worship or music or church furniture or architecture. All are catered for. That is its weakness too, as it spreads resources thinly and where it tries to blend it can seem shallow.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It is only a weakness when you get members who cannot accept that other people actually have the right to hold a differing opinion.
Especially when they use offensive language when criticising people they disagree with.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Comprehensive inclusivity is Anglicanism's greatest strength.
- Archbishop Roger Herft. Metropolitan of Perth, Australia.

Discuss
Is this inclusivity a feature of Anglicanism in every part of the world, or only in some places (generally in the West)? There must be some countries where Anglicanism fills a niche position and doesn't have the remit or the inclination to try to 'include' everybody.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Weakness is strength. So we are doubly strong.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I've heard it likened to the Lyle's syrup ad (which came from the OT originally) of a swarm of bees in a dead lion - out of the strong came forth sweetness.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Is this inclusivity a feature of Anglicanism in every part of the world, or only in some places (generally in the West)? There must be some countries where Anglicanism fills a niche position and doesn't have the remit or the inclination to try to 'include' everybody.
I realise this might seem like coat-trailing, but it's actually a serious question. In the US where there's no denomination that could even be seen as a deposed official church, and almost everyone is descended from people who came from somewhere else and brought their religious identity with them, isn't every denomination a niche position?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I realise this might seem like coat-trailing, but it's actually a serious question. In the US where there's no denomination that could even be seen as a deposed official church, and almost everyone is descended from people who came from somewhere else and brought their religious identity with them, isn't every denomination a niche position?
And yet the National Cathedral in Washington DC is an Episcopalian Cathedral.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Weakness is strength. So we are doubly strong.
It depends what the weakness is based on. If it weakness borne out of a desire to depend on god then, yes, I'd agree. If it's weakness that comes from a dilution of the foundational beliefs of the church, then that's something way more serious.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Is this inclusivity a feature of Anglicanism in every part of the world, or only in some places (generally in the West)? There must be some countries where Anglicanism fills a niche position and doesn't have the remit or the inclination to try to 'include' everybody.
I realise this might seem like coat-trailing, but it's actually a serious question. In the US where there's no denomination that could even be seen as a deposed official church, and almost everyone is descended from people who came from somewhere else and brought their religious identity with them, isn't every denomination a niche position?
I wasn't trying to be controversial just for the sake of it. It's just that the OP contains a rather questionable assumption.

The USA is an obvious example of a country where Anglicanism has no particular remit to include everyone. I was also thinking of Anglicanism in Africa. Or how about the Anglophone Caribbean? The former British colonies there were envisioned as Anglican, but the CofE was generally slow to evangelise among the black inhabitants, and in Jamaica, for instance, the normative forms of mainstream Christianity were more likely to be Baptist or Methodist than Anglican.

It seems as though Australian Anglicanism (to which Archbishop Roger Herft belongs) is similar to the CofE in social status and in its self-regard as an inclusive church. But I imagine that the pros and cons of inclusivity are less relevant to a majority of the world's Anglicans, most of whom are in Sub-Saharan Africa.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
And yet the character of Anglicanism springs from its identity as the national Church of England. With the partial exception of the Scottish Episcopal Church and its cousin TEC, though even these have been strongly influenced by the English variety of Anglicanism. Nearly everywhere else where Anglican churches exist they have been planted by missionaries or expatriates from England, and hence comprehensiveness is in their DNA. But also (as in the C of E itself) bloody-mindedness and self-contradiction, so you will see attempts to turn it into an exclusive church. Sydney perhaps?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor's Eye:
It means in theory that all people will be embraced as loved by Christ, whatever their beliefs and attitudes, whatever their preferences for styles of worship or music or church furniture or architecture. All are catered for. That is its weakness too, as it spreads resources thinly and where it tries to blend it can seem shallow.
Then its strength greatly outweighs its weakness. The further down the road towards exclusivity which any religion, philosophy or political ideology takes us, the more odious it becomes. Anglicanism can seem a warm and gentle embrace.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I realise this might seem like coat-trailing, but it's actually a serious question. In the US where there's no denomination that could even be seen as a deposed official church, and almost everyone is descended from people who came from somewhere else and brought their religious identity with them, isn't every denomination a niche position?
And yet the National Cathedral in Washington DC is an Episcopalian Cathedral.
Which many non-Episcopalians, at least among those who pay attention to the National Cathedral and are aware of its foundation, find a somewhat vestigial echo of presumed establishment at best and pretentious at worst.

As for whether TEC can be seen as a deposed official church, its status varied from colony to colony.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I only have fleeting contacts with the Episcopalian Church here in Brazil. They're definitely a minority here, but I can't judge very well if they have an inclination to include everyone. Some of the churches are quite active in the ecumenical movement.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Comprehensive inclusivity is Anglicanism's greatest strength. It is also its greatest weakness.
- Archbishop Roger Herft. Metropolitan of Perth, Australia.
I think it's a defacto rather than deliberate position, and it's mainly maintained as a kind of flag of convenience, where it's convenient.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Weakness is a foundational teaching of the church.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It is only a weakness when you get members who cannot accept that other people actually have the right to hold a differing opinion.

IOW everyone has to work on making it work.
So very much this.

Anglicanism's fatal weakness is its stubborn insistence on tolerating the intolerant. I use "tolerance" in a strict sense: evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics who demand that their personal beliefs be imposed on the rest of the church, and anyone who disagrees either conform or leave.

No better illustration can be found (I'm not seeking to discuss the DH itself) than England giving Anglo-Catholic opponents of equal ordination a church-within-a-church, after they'd tried to block any women from being ordained.

If Anglicanism doesn't learn to stand up to intolerance, its center cannot hold.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Comprehensive inclusivity is Anglicanism's greatest strength. It is also its greatest weakness.
- Archbishop Roger Herft. Metropolitan of Perth, Australia.

Discuss
I think it used to be a strength (not sure I would call it the "greatest strength, though). But that was when the various wings of Anglicanism talked to one another rather than at one another.

In recent decades, there has been a retreat into separatist camps. Instead of relating to your neighbouring church (which might be of a very different tradition), more effort and time is given to connecting with like minded churches across the country or area (think Reform or New Wine or Forward in Faith). Hence there is no longer any genuine inclusivity. What there is amounts to differing groups who have little connection to one another, other than using the same title of "Anglican."

I doubt that Anglicanism can survive in this way for very long. Rather than continue to pursue the present policy of "keep everyone onboard at all costs", there should be a point where Anglicanism says "THIS is what you have to accept. If you can't do that, then you can't be a part of the Anglican Communion."

At the very least, "THIS" should include: being willing to share communion with all other Anglicans, regardless of their opinions, gender or sexuality; a refusal to tolerate naked homophobia.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
I've always felt that the parish structure encouraged being inclusive: the church being there for everyone in the parish regardless of their attendance and I still think that that hope remains. As others have said there has been a more recent polarisation around theology and praxis in the UK and that saddens me.
Here in Kenya, especially in the rural parishes the Anglican church reflects its roots: it was born out of the endeavours of brave souls from the Church Mission Society over 200 hundred years ago and it reflects that history with the vast majority of the churches being traditional prayer book Evangelical. In neighbouring Tanzania many of the first missionaries were from a high church background so things are a bit different there.
All of that said, the Anglican church here does still see itself as being there for the parish and although quite narrow in its practice is a lot less controlling and more inclusive than some other denominations. Which has to be a strength!
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
*dons the non-Anglican hat*

Looking in from the perspective of an outside observer who frequently interacts with the CofE, inclusiveness is often misapplied. While the CofE is certainly welcoming to all, that is by no means unique to that denomination.

Where it oversteps the mark (and here I speak more of the hierarchy than those who fill the pews) is where it tries to market itself not just as a church that is welcoming to everybody, but as one that is for everybody. In other words, that it is the right church for all.

The consequence of this is the denigration of other churches. Take for example, the 'A church near you' website. It lists only Anglican churches. It's rather like Starbucks running 'A coffee shop near you' website that only lists their outlets.

The CofE's aim to have a 'christian presence in every community' is certainly commendable. I just question whether it has to be that particular flavour of christianity with no mention of the wider variety that exists.

*takes off the non-Anglican hat*

That said, the CofE does use its privileged position for a lot of good, speaking out boldly at a national level what the non-conformist churches usually only whisper in their local communities. The level of social action, particularly in the inner city, puts a lot of other churches to shame.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Where it oversteps the mark (and here I speak more of the hierarchy than those who fill the pews) is where it tries to market itself not just as a church that is welcoming to everybody, but as one that is for everybody. In other words, that it is the right church for all.

The consequence of this is the denigration of other churches ...
There is truth in this and I have experienced it.

I think that there is a fundamental difference in thinking between Anglican and Nonconformist churches. Anglicans (and other national churches) imply that "you are English, therefore you are a Christian unless you deliberately opt out". Nonconformists imply "you are not a Christian until you opt in".

I could write more ... but do others agree? Of course this is less true today than it once was because (a) all Christian affiliation is becoming increasingly countercultural and (b) many Christians don't consciously brand themselves as members of a denomination, they are more likely to identify themselves with their local congregation.

[ 04. August 2014, 08:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
It is only in the twentieth century Non-Conformist whisper. The demise relates almost exactly to the decline of the Liberal Party.

Can I just point out for those who think Anglicanism and more particularly the CofE is inclusive that it was the denomination that got the same sex marriage legislation to be such that it is assumed that Churches do not carry out such acts.

It is doubly exclusionary. Not only does it carry out the obvious one but it is framed solely for the Church of England and pays no attention to the form of other churches even ones enshrined in British Law.

Jengie
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I agree with Jengie although I don't want to stray onto DH territory.

Certainly there is an assumption by the media that "The Church" = the CofE (with occasional nods towards the RCs). So "the Church" is seen as having stood monolithically against SSM although, in fact, some denominations have been actively discussing it.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I think there are three visions of the C of E that only rarely interact. There is the smooth-talking hierarchy, brushing division and conflict under the carpet, claiming to be the voice of Establishment; there are the activist sectarian groups such as Reform, F in F, and the rest; and there is the ordinary bog-standard parish church which is there for the people. The latter does not have to be middle of the road liturgically (though in rural areas usually is), just to recognise that its mission is not to be the flag-waver for a cause but to be a focus for God's love in that particular community. In my experience, at least 90% of parish churches are like this. Not all equally effectively of course, but I know well several churches from snake-belly low to stratospherically high and none of them have a significant proportion of partisan flag-wavers.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

1. Where it oversteps the mark (and here I speak more of the hierarchy than those who fill the pews) is where it tries to market itself not just as a church that is welcoming to everybody, but as one that is for everybody. In other words, that it is the right church for all.

2. That said, the CofE does use its privileged position for a lot of good, speaking out boldly at a national level what the non-conformist churches usually only whisper in their local communities.

3.The level of social action, particularly in the inner city, puts a lot of other churches to shame.
1. Yep with you on that one. Sadly we non Anglicans are only tolerated by most aspects of the CofE hierarchy when we have resources to offer (esp money). What took the biscuit at a recent induction was the implication that this was the only church in the parish when there were 3 other ministers all local sitting in the congregation. Said Anglican church did very little in this inner city area.

2. I'm not convinced. All too often it's a load of posh boy bishops stroking the egos of their chums from public schools

3. I'd beg to differ. In this very urban area (half a mile from the centre of a town with 220,000 people) the CofE does very little except fight sectarian battles with itself. The strongest participants in social projects are non Anglicans with the Salvation Army (who I respect a great deal) streets ahead of everyone.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Comprehensive inclusivity is Anglicanism's greatest strength. It is also its greatest weakness.
- Archbishop Roger Herft. Metropolitan of Perth, Australia.

Discuss
I think it used to be a strength (not sure I would call it the "greatest strength, though). But that was when the various wings of Anglicanism talked to one another rather than at one another.

In recent decades, there has been a retreat into separatist camps. Instead of relating to your neighbouring church (which might be of a very different tradition), more effort and time is given to connecting with like minded churches across the country or area (think Reform or New Wine or Forward in Faith). Hence there is no longer any genuine inclusivity. What there is amounts to differing groups who have little connection to one another, other than using the same title of "Anglican."
I think this is an important point, and what makes "communion" a reality.

If that fails, then perhaps it is time to separate ways.

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

If Anglicanism doesn't learn to stand up to intolerance, its center cannot hold.
If Anglicanism rejects intolerance, it is no longer tolerant and inclusive itself.

You can't claim to be inclusive but reject those who disagree with you and not tolerate them.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can't claim to be inclusive but reject those who disagree with you and not tolerate them.
The question is inclusive of what. That depends on your project, in this case anglicanism. If it is about "right belief", you have to reject "wrong belief" or it cannot exist.

If on the other hand anglicanism is about, say, the search for truth within the Christian tradition, then you can authentically welcome anyone who is also searching for the truth, whatever they believe, as long as they've happy to conduct their search within what "Christian tradition" looks like in your context. But you have to say to those who either think they've "found the truth", or want to search in, say, the Islamic tradition, that that is not what anglicanism is about.

The problem for anglicanism is that it claims in its rituals to be about right belief.

[ 04. August 2014, 13:57: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
If Anglicanism was inclusive it would be Unitarian! Sorry but the Unitarians are not marked by their rejection of the Trinity, they are marked by the fact they are willing to include people who do not accept the Trinity into membership. They used to be called in England the far more accurate Unitarian and Liberal Christian Church.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Some parts of the CofE are unitarian in all but name, Jengie ...

[Frown]

I was part of a Baptist church until I moved here and got involved with my local CofE parish because it was evangelical (I was more evangelical back then) and had good kids/youth work.

No disrespect to the non-conformist alternatives, but they held even less appeal I'm afraid and I know that sounds terribly consumerist. Not that the parish church did, particularly, to be honest.

Having been involved with 'new church', Free Church and Anglican churches I certainly recognise the gripes. The heirarchy is still dominated by public school toffs. So is the evangelical wing of the CofE to be frank ... HT-bloody-B and all that.

The problem, as I see it - is that those aspects of Anglicanism that I DO find attractive are increasingly being nudged out into rural fastnesses.

The evangelical charismatics have all got Vineyard-envy and are trying to be all bright, bubbly and trendy and it's bloody embarrassing. It's like Dad-dancing at weddings.

There are still some Prayer Book Evangelicals around but they're becoming as rare as hen's teeth.

Liberal Catholic Anglicanism looks attractive at first, but when you look closely it's like a bloody doughnut with air in the middle ...

The Anglo-Catholics are arcane and spikey and fighting among themselves.

Sure, the CofE has to reinvent itself and get away from the 'More tea, vicar?' and the evil Wallace and Gromit vicar and ineffective 'Dad's Army' vicar cliches.

But the stomach churningly cheesy way it's going about it makes me wince.

I really don't know what the answer is. I wish I did. There's never, ever been an idyllically Anglican era with old ladies cycling to Evensong, George Herbert in the pulpit and the setting sun slanting through the stained glass windows as the faithful sing, 'The Day Thou Gavest ...'

I know that. But it still stings.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
They used to be called in England the far more accurate Unitarian and Liberal Christian Church.
They still are, and I have a friend who found himself less than welcomed by some members of his Meeting because he wished to emphasise the "Free Christian" aspect. I think though that this is not true of all meetings.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The heirarchy is still dominated by public school toffs. So is the evangelical wing of the CofE to be frank ... HT-bloody-B and all that.
A line of DNA stretching back through David Watson, John Stott and the 1930s "Bash Camps" - as Pete Ward made very clear. But I think you know that.

(Could so nearly have gone down that line myself, had not the local "sound" church in my University city been non-conformist instead of Anglican).
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
They used to be called in England the far more accurate Unitarian and Liberal Christian Church.
They still are, and I have a friend who found himself less than welcomed by some members of his Meeting because he wished to emphasise the "Free Christian" aspect. I think though that this is not true of all meetings.
[tangent]
In the 1990s the principle of a Unitarian college was sacked for not being Christian enough.
[/tangent]

I know of no denomination that does not wish to exclude certain groups of people. They just have different ways of doing it. Imagine trying to be a Quaker if you could not handle silence.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think the Quakers would simply tell you to 'shut up' ...

They'd put it more politely than that, though.

'Shut up, Friend.'

[Biased]

But yes, your point stands. But one wouldn't be drawn to a Quaker Meeting unless one could handle silence - or learn to handle it. Equally, if someone has an allergy to incense they're going to hit some trouble if they feel drawn to the Orthodox ...

Meanwhile, @Baptist Trainfan ...

Please don't misunderstand me, some of my best friends went to public school ...

[Big Grin]

In a former time, I might have gone to a Grammar and not a 'bog-standard Comprehensive' ... if I'd passed my 11+ of course. I think I would have done on most things but I'm not sure if my maths would have been up to it back then ... I used to struggle with that. Still do to an extent.

Still doesn't stop me from having a South Walian chip on my shoulder towards toffs.

My wife's family is made up of people who'd have brought me out in spots when I was growing up in South Wales.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The heirarchy is still dominated by public school toffs. So is the evangelical wing of the CofE to be frank ... HT-bloody-B and all that.
A line of DNA stretching back through David Watson, John Stott and the 1930s "Bash Camps" - as Pete Ward made very clear. But I think you know that.

(Could so nearly have gone down that line myself, had not the local "sound" church in my University city been non-conformist instead of Anglican).
I wonder how many clergy have ever worked in manual work or other such employment? (I don't mean a few weeks sorting post as a student either).

I wonder what the figures might be of clergy who went to public school and/or university?

It would be instructive to see just how far removed the clergy are from the "average man in the street" of their parish and/or congregation.

I'm with Gam here. I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the posh, I just think it's another example of our unrepresentative church. I don't need an eton boy like Justin to tell me what it's like to suffer, I rather know it out of my own experience. He's got sod all in common with most people in his churches and les with those outside them: perhaps I'll put the point to him when we meet in a few weeks' time.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
There is plenty of research about CoE clerics' social and educational background, but as the OP was not about the CoE, but rather Anglicanism, I don't know if it would be terribly useful. Indeed, given the variety of life among different provinces, I think that averages of all Anglican clergy around the world would be likely useless.

Certainly, in Canada most of our bishops are of professional or less background--- I can only think of a few who come from wealthy families and we only have one aristocrat (now a retired suffragan of Toronto)-- I believe that one of our diocesans has no university qualification. While we have our own class divisions, as do other countries, they are not of the same nature as seems to be the case in the UK.

In any case Anglicans do have a general intolerance of those who really don't agree with our presuppositions. Try being in a minority theological opinion and you will discover the viciousness of our passive aggressive approach ot church life.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, ExclamationMark, Eton boy or not, Justin Welby has lost a daughter in a car accident.

He's also been threatened with death and endured some rough treatment in a mercy-mission/go between role in Africa.

Both of those count as suffering in my book.

Perhaps they don't in yours ... [Disappointed]

Never judge anyone until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

Ok, you've worked as a manual labourer. Good for you. No need to get chippy about it.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I don't need an eton boy like Justin to tell me what it's like to suffer, I rather know it out of my own experience. He's got sod all in common with most people in his churches and les with those outside them: perhaps I'll put the point to him when we meet in a few weeks' time.
But what do you expect him to do about it? He is who he is, and he probably wouldn't be where he is without his expensive education. Let's just hope he does some good with it.

I read somewhere that he sends his children to state schools, so perhaps their friends and contacts have helped to broaden his awareness of what ordinary life is like.

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
There is plenty of research about CoE clerics' social and educational background, but as the OP was not about the CoE, but rather Anglicanism, I don't know if it would be terribly useful. Indeed, given the variety of life among different provinces, I think that averages of all Anglican clergy around the world would be likely useless.

Certainly, in Canada most of our bishops are of professional or less background--- I can only think of a few who come from wealthy families and we only have one aristocrat (now a retired suffragan of Toronto)-- I believe that one of our diocesans has no university qualification. While we have our own class divisions, as do other countries, they are not of the same nature as seems to be the case in the UK.
Comparisons are likely to be made with ministers in other local denominations though, not simply with Anglican clergy in England. My impression is that Anglican clergy throughout the world tend to be a bit further up the social scale than their local 'colleagues' in other denominations. This might not be about wealth as such.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I hope when you do meet him, ExclamationMark, he treats you more graciously than you are currently treating him.

'I'm not chippy ...' like hell you aren't ...

[Roll Eyes] [Biased]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
... Anglicanism's fatal weakness is its stubborn insistence on tolerating the intolerant. I use "tolerance" in a strict sense: evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics who demand that their personal beliefs be imposed on the rest of the church, and anyone who disagrees either conform or leave.

No better illustration can be found (I'm not seeking to discuss the DH itself) than England giving Anglo-Catholic opponents of equal ordination a church-within-a-church, after they'd tried to block any women from being ordained.

If Anglicanism doesn't learn to stand up to intolerance, its center cannot hold.
IMHO that is not just wrong, but goes against something deeply fundamental to what the CofE is there for and stands for. It is also not what the parable of the wheat and the tares is about.

Whatever Anglicanism may stand for elsewhere, and however much Exclamation Mark may take exception to this, fundamental to the English take on this is that the Church of England aspires to be Mere Christianity for all English people.

There are serious tensions this engenders. One of them is that between comprehensiveness and faithfulness to what you think is the Anglican vision. The CofE hasn't always done very well on this, though the prickliness of many Puritans in the C17 did not help.

Comprehensiveness thinks there should be room within the CofE household for as many as possible of those in the country who consider themselves to be Christian - at its extreme, only those who choose to exclude themselves, who feel that their vision obliges them to separate themselves, are excluded.

Faithfulness to what you think is the Anglican vision, tends to mean that you claim you know what true Anglicanism is, and that it is your calling to get yourself into a position where you can force others to agree or get out, whether you are a Puritan, Archbishop Laud, the Oxford Movement, Reform, Forward in Faith, Byron, or in a non-English setting Archbishop Jefferts Schori.

Another tension is between 'enthusiasm' and 'blandness/complacency/taking the church of Laodicea as your model'. Enthusiasts may be edgy and uncomfortable at times. They may be intolerant, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly. It is, though, a much, much more dangerous thing for any church to prefer those who do not seek first the kingdom of heaven to those who do.

I am sure Professor Woodhead of Lancaster University would disagree with me. I am equally sure she is wrong. That that would be the path to ensuring that the Church of England splutters and goes out in this generation.

It may be that would fulfil the vision of various New Frontiers type ecclesial communities, but I'm not at all convinced they are up to picking up the baton.

A third tension which follows on from this, is that if one believes that the church is the household of faith for all Christians, it is not our job either to exclude or to squeeze out those with whom we disagree, but who are not heretics in the traditional conciliar sense.

On the DH issue to which Byron refers, whatever one's personal view (I would guess my view is probably not that far from Byron's), holding what he regards as the wrong or out-of- date view on who can be bishops can hardly be a conciliar heresy. Most people took that view for granted until very recently. Nor have the world's two largest ecclesial communities come round to the CofE's position.

So, inconvenient though it may be, I now think the CofE is right to have done what it can to accommodate those who haven't agreed with the majority view, particularly bearing in mind that although one may disagree with them, they are not heretics.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I hope when you do meet him, ExclamationMark, he treats you more graciously than you are currently treating him.

'I'm not chippy ...' like hell you aren't ...

[Roll Eyes] [Biased]
Excuse me! This is the second time you've insulted Exclamation Mark today. Behave!

Gwai,
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair call.

I was tempted to issue a Hell call but thought better of it. I shouldn't have posted like that in Purgatory.

[Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On the DH issue to which Byron refers, whatever one's personal view (I would guess my view is probably not that far from Byron's), holding what he regards as the wrong or out-of- date view on who can be bishops can hardly be a conciliar heresy. Most people took that view for granted until very recently. Nor have the world's two largest ecclesial communities come round to the CofE's position.
I agree with Enoch. The C of E has done exactly the right thing with regards to the DH issue. The Lambeth Conference of 1998 clarified that members with this particular minority view are loyal Anglicans along with the majority. It's therefore inclusive to include them, rather than exclude them because they are less inclusive than others. Whether the measures agreed endure another 20 years or more remain to be seen. But, to their credit, they finally found a formula that's fair and, as a bottom line, acceptable to all. That is inclusiveness.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I doubt that Anglicanism can survive in this way for very long. Rather than continue to pursue the present policy of "keep everyone onboard at all costs", there should be a point where Anglicanism says "THIS is what you have to accept. If you can't do that, then you can't be a part of the Anglican Communion."

At the very least, "THIS" should include: being willing to share communion with all other Anglicans, regardless of their opinions, gender or sexuality; a refusal to tolerate naked homophobia.
This is worth emphasizing because I think it puts forward exactly what is needed. And because I really like the turn of phrase "refusal to tolerate naked homophobia".
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


1. Both of those count as suffering in my book.
Perhaps they don't in yours ... [Disappointed]

2. Ok, you've worked as a manual labourer. Good for you. No need to get chippy about it.
1. They count to me too - I recognise he has faced those two faith and life changing events. Yes I did know about both.

The point I was trying to make - badly and with hyperbole as it turned out - was that like me and you he hasn't walked in the shoes of the employed on a so called sink estate in the UK (as you rightly reminded me). Yet his privileged education has set him in a place where lots of his congregations aren't.

I don't diminish his suffering in any way.

2. Surely you can't come down on the side of chippy - shouldn't it be both chippy and of course non chippy [Biased] [Biased] ?

Perhaps we both recognise the absurdities and prejudices of the world but express them in different ways. In the Fens of my youth they tended to kick seven bells out of people who were suspected of being or getting above themselves. I rather think that South wales was more refined in its dislike of patronage and the like.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair call.

I was tempted to issue a Hell call but thought better of it. I shouldn't have posted like that in Purgatory.

[Hot and Hormonal]
Apologies everyone and Justin - my post was out of order in making it personal. My frustrations about stuff on the ground got the better of my posting on line.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The heirarchy is still dominated by public school toffs. So is the evangelical wing of the CofE to be frank ... HT-bloody-B and all that.
A line of DNA stretching back through David Watson, John Stott and the 1930s "Bash Camps" - as Pete Ward made very clear. But I think you know that.

(Could so nearly have gone down that line myself, had not the local "sound" church in my University city been non-conformist instead of Anglican).
I wonder how many clergy have ever worked in manual work or other such employment? (I don't mean a few weeks sorting post as a student either).

I wonder what the figures might be of clergy who went to public school and/or university?

It would be instructive to see just how far removed the clergy are from the "average man in the street" of their parish and/or congregation.

I'm with Gam here. I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the posh, I just think it's another example of our unrepresentative church. I don't need an eton boy like Justin to tell me what it's like to suffer, I rather know it out of my own experience. He's got sod all in common with most people in his churches and les with those outside them: perhaps I'll put the point to him when we meet in a few weeks' time.
Well, not that many people generally work in manual work nowadays - most working-class people now work in supermarkets and call-centres etc.

I think the CoE is actually probably the most inclusive in terms of clergy's backgrounds - in many other branches of the Anglican church, you need a degree (or sometimes even a postgrad degree) to be accepted for ministerial training. You don't in the CoE. I agree that there is an issue with the clergy being incredibly middle class, but in a church which is very middle class, what are you going to do?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
What's the point of having go at ++Justin just because he's posh? Lord knows I have no brief for Etonians but none of us chooses which family we're born into and few of us choose which school we go to, or if we do we do so within a range determined by (i) what is available and /or (ii) what our parents think is suitable.
What ++Justin has done is decide to turn off of the route of material advantage and success in which he started and, by being ordained, to take on a life which although it may carry a certain amount of social status even as a parish priest, will have taken him outside his social comfort zone and offers material rewards (even as an Archbishop) which many of his contemporaries from his own background would regard as laughably small.
Inverted snobbery is just as distasteful as the traditional kind.

[ 05. August 2014, 15:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On the DH issue to which Byron refers, whatever one's personal view (I would guess my view is probably not that far from Byron's), holding what he regards as the wrong or out-of- date view on who can be bishops can hardly be a conciliar heresy. Most people took that view for granted until very recently. Nor have the world's two largest ecclesial communities come round to the CofE's position.
I agree with Enoch. The C of E has done exactly the right thing with regards to the DH issue. The Lambeth Conference of 1998 clarified that members with this particular minority view are loyal Anglicans along with the majority. It's therefore inclusive to include them, rather than exclude them because they are less inclusive than others. Whether the measures agreed endure another 20 years or more remain to be seen. But, to their credit, they finally found a formula that's fair and, as a bottom line, acceptable to all. That is inclusiveness.
It's not fair, it's not acceptable, and it legitimises bigotry.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Quite. It's not a question of 'conciliar heresy': it's much more everyday than that. It is about accepting that those who the Church has ordained are indeed ordained, or at the every elast behaving as if you accpted that. That's a basic necessity for keeping the show on the road.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
There is a reason why this topic is normally dealt with elsewhere but for me these postings are an illustration of how Anglicans are tolerant only insofar as it is within a generally accepted consensus. While this is pretty well true of everyone everywhere, this particular issue shows what happens when the consensus shifts and tolerance, once granted to a minority, is withdrawn.
 
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...The hierarchy is still dominated by public school toffs. So is the evangelical wing of the CofE to be frank ... HT-bloody-B and all that

...the stomach churningly cheesy way it's going about it makes me wince...it still stings.
Gamaliel,

Thank you for your piece. I agree with much of it.

However, I find less that bishops are 'toffs' but more likely that 9/10 clergy I know have been to Oxbridge. I have no bias against Oxbridge, nor do I think we should stop sending clergy there, but the number of times I hear clergy waxing lyrical about the Ancient Universities, well, I worked my darnedest to get into my decidedly not-Oxbridge university, and to hear that all my work was utterly dismissed was heartbreaking when I was younger. (I'm older now, and care less.)

I am terribly afraid that the 'inclusivity' of Anglicanism is now seen as 'we must be all things to all people' when I would much rather be that 'we are the Church of God presenting to the Gospel to those who live in this land.'

So much of our present activities - the Wedding Project, the Baptism Project - seem to smack of utter desperation. 'See! We're not mad! We're nice fluffy people! Who believe fluffy things! And we like the gays! And women! And women bishops! See!? Please come to our church! We have coffee! And Powerpoint! And groovy sermons! And dancing lady vicars!'

It's hardly the stuff that saints and martyrs are made of.

Ugh.

x

AV

[ 05. August 2014, 16:02: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The problem isn't that support should be given to a minority. Nobody disputed that provision should be made for those who were faithful servants of the church and were part of the church when the church changed. It was the abusive behaviour of those put in to support, who chose to empire build and encourage the ordination of those priests who wanted to insist on the previous situation and not accept that the Anglican church they were being ordained into had changed. And that has poisoned the situation for everyone.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
On the "all the (CofE) clergy are toffs" thing, a visitor to my last church said that I "sounded too posh to be a Baptist".

You just can't win ... and, as far as I know, I speak ordinary English, not a "cut-glass" accent!

(Cross-posted with Curiosity).

[ 05. August 2014, 16:08: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Baptist Trainfan

You come across as a bit posh on these threads too. But that's not a criticism! From what I've read, Baptists are among the poshest of all the British Nonconformists, so that makes sense.

The minister of my local Baptist church is a former public schoolboy from an exotic background. He sends his own children to an inner-city state school, but at least they'll have his cultural capital to fall back on. Clergy children do seem to benefit from that, even if their parents don't have a lot of money.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
And dancing lady vicars!
Did you have to bring that up again? Really? I was perfectly happy to have erased that memory from my mind.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think the Quakers would simply tell you to 'shut up' ...

They'd put it more politely than that, though.

'Shut up, Friend.'

[Biased]

But yes, your point stands. But one wouldn't be drawn to a Quaker Meeting unless one could handle silence - or learn to handle it. Equally, if someone has an allergy to incense they're going to hit some trouble if they feel drawn to the Orthodox ...
But that practice in itself is exclusionary. Think about it, its just the same as saying a person in a wheel chair should not go to a church with steps to the main door.


Actually to make a comment about the discussion in general. If you want to know how inclusive you are then you need to consider the people who are outside and WHY they do not come. You then need to ask whether their reasons are acceptable reasons to exclude them.

Jengie

[ 05. August 2014, 16:29: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
From what I've read, Baptists are among the poshest of all the British Nonconformists, so that makes sense.
Actually, I disagree. Certainly, in the past, the Wesleyan Methodists were top of the tree (but of course they then got mixed up with all those Primitives and Bible Christians). I think, today, that URC are probably "poshest", especially those from Presbyterian backgrounds. And remember that - according to Andrew Walker - that Charismatics are basically middle-class Pentecostals (who were traditionally working-class).

(Jengie, we need you, to comment on this! But it's a bit of a tangent really)

[ 05. August 2014, 16:34: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Jengie, I was actually agreeing with you ...

On the posh non-conformity thing, it tended to vary by region, but from talks and things I've been to on non-conformist history, the pecking order seems to have been:

* Congregationalist
A lot of the mill-owner up north were Congies - Sir Titus Salt etc. The old Congregationalist Chapel at Heckmondwike is still a sight to behold, the 'Non-conformist Cathedral' of the 'Heavy Woollen District'.

* Wesleyan Methodist
Generally middling middle-class

* Baptist
Lower middle class/upper-working class. Lots of shoemakers and independent artisans (I originally typed 'lots of cobblers' but realised that could be misunderstood).

* Primitive Methodist
Working class, potters, miners etc.

In my native South Wales it tended to be:

Anglican
Methodist
Baptist and independent evangelical
Pentecostal
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my native South Wales it tended to be:

Anglican
Methodist
Baptist and independent evangelical
Pentecostal
Yes - let's hear it for the Pen-y-groes Apostolics and the Jeffreys brothers (Maesteg) in Elim!

Much more seriously: I do believe that a congregation should try to encompass people from all social classes and backgrounds in a locality. That is my vision of the Body of Christ. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that different groups of people do have differing education, interests and cultures, which can make this very difficult to achieve.

In practice, most churches (and, indeed, secular societies) will tend to assume the characteristics of the dominant group present. However inclusive they try to be (and many try very hard), they may still be seen as exclusivist by people from outside that social hegemony.

[ 05. August 2014, 16:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Charismatics are basically middle-class Pentecostals (who were traditionally working-class).
[Overused] Guilty, as charged!

[ 05. August 2014, 16:47: Message edited by: TheAlethiophile ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes. But at least the working class Pentecostals are more authentic.

[Razz]

Andrew Walker made that observation too ...

[Biased]
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And remember that - according to Andrew Walker - that Charismatics are basically middle-class Pentecostals (who were traditionally working-class).
Do many churches in the UK label themselves as Charismatic or Pentecostal these day? A lot of those that would seem to me to fall under such categories just seem to call themselves free churches. I know one which is working class, with lots of emphasis on speaking on tongues and receiving the Holy Spirit, and taking the Bible very literally, and when I tried to ask what denomination they were, and where they got their ideas, they said they were simply Christian, that they got their beliefs straight from God rather than from any human tradition. Eventually, I asked them where they got their songs and why they sang the word 'wrath' with the American pronunciation, and then it turned out they got their stuff from an American church. I'm not sure if it was Charismatic or Pentecostal, or what the difference would be - I've tended to hear the terms used interchangeably.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
From what little I know I'd say that some Congregationalists could be fairly posh: and what about Brethren? Some distinctly upper-middle class intellectuals (Tony Crosland's father etc) there, surely?

[ 05. August 2014, 17:14: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Baptist Trainfan

Yes, I'm sure the situation will be more complex if you take a historical view.

Clive Field's figures suggest that the Baptists were often a little higher up the social scale in the early 19th century than the Wesleyans. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries his figures suggest that after having lost people at the top of the scale the Baptists were becoming more diverse, with both more professionals and more unskilled manual workers than the Congregationalists.

Coming from a Methodist tradition, the thing I've noticed is that CofE congregations seem both posher and yet more working class than Methodist congregations. IOW, Methodist congregations are more uniformly upper working/lower middle class, and have less social diversity. The Baptists are perhaps more like the CofE in this respect.
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Do many churches in the UK label themselves as Charismatic or Pentecostal these day?
A fair few, though they tend to put less stock in their adjectives than other churches do. My church (Ichthus) calls itself charismatic and evangelical, though it's not exactly shouted about. Others such as Pioneer, New Frontiers, Elim are also fairly openly charismatic/pentecostal.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
From what little I know I'd say that some Congregationalists could be fairly posh: and what about Brethren? Some distinctly upper-middle class intellectuals (Tony Crosland's father etc) there, surely?
Congregationalist and Baptists could be posh, but they are mainly lower middle class, with a mix of both classes above and below. The result if you think of it of the long term barring from the professions of Nonconformists. The distribution is such that they are on average lower than CofE.

The real anomaly was the English Presbyterians who were strongly dominated by upper middle class. The majority in their congregations were professionals (doctors, University lecturers etc) or senior management in industry. Thus the average Presbyterian was of an equivalent or higher social status than your average CofE member.

Jengie
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:


However, I find less that bishops are 'toffs' but more likely that 9/10 clergy I know have been to Oxbridge.
I don't know what circles you move in Ahleal, but I can only think of three priests in this diocese who are Oxbridge educated (I'm not including Oxbridge theological colleges like Westcott House). Of these, one of them is proudly working-class, one is state-educated middle class, and only one (and I don't know the details of his background) comes across as 'posh'. (PS I meant to add, I'm sure there are more than three Oxbridge priests but none of them spring to mind out of the large number who I do know)

[ 05. August 2014, 18:03: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
I agree with Angloid. I don't know many Oxbridge priests (although I know a number of rather posh priests who DIDN'T go to Oxbridge!). Although there aren't many working class priests, I think that there is a reasonable amount of diversity in "priestly backgrounds" these days.

But I do think that there is still a considerable LACK of diversity in bishops. Although there are exceptions, most C of E bishops that I have encountered have fit a very similar mould. I notice this even more now that I am in Canada, where the bishops I have encountered are vastly more diverse than in the UK.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Probably scope for a new thread about Pentecostalism and how it differs from the 'Johnny Come Lately' charismatic scene.

Walker was right. The main difference between the old time Pentecostals and the newer charismatics was a class difference ...

That said, at the beginning of the Pentecostal movement in the UK at least there was a posher periphery - the Rev Alexander Boddy up in Sunderland ('Pastor Boddy') an Anglican vicar, Cecil Polhill who had been one of The Cambridge Seven ...

Donald Gee, the great Assemblies of God elder statesman came from a Congregationalist background and was certainly 'posher' and better educated than most of the early Penties.

He later reflected that some of the initial Keswick style holiness/mission-society elite who were involved in the early days were soon swept aside. Some of them, he felt, were rather too easily taken in by earnest and not particularly gifted preachers from the South Wales Valleys ...

[Biased]

Over in the US there was a parallel scenario with the rootsy, gutsy, often multi-racial early Pentecostal movement attracting what we might call 'religious professionals' - various independent missioners and missionaries and so on who were from 'better off' backgrounds.

There's been some interesting work done recently on Pentecostal history.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I agree with Angloid. I don't know many Oxbridge priests (although I know a number of rather posh priests who DIDN'T go to Oxbridge!). Although there aren't many working class priests, I think that there is a reasonable amount of diversity in "priestly backgrounds" these days.

But I do think that there is still a considerable LACK of diversity in bishops. Although there are exceptions, most C of E bishops that I have encountered have fit a very similar mould. I notice this even more now that I am in Canada, where the bishops I have encountered are vastly more diverse than in the UK.
This might partly be on account of the committee process used to select bishops in the CoE; there's little chance of a wild card as produced by elections or a benevolent sovereign (or her PM).
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
'Posh' is a relative term, of course. What an educated, middle class, small town Anglican thinks of as posh and what a less educated inner city, working class Pentecostal thinks of as posh might be two different things! 'Posher than I am' means you always have a different starting point!

Perhaps Anglican 'inclusivity' requires that as many people as possible are able to look up to their local priest (without feeling that he or she is unapproachable). If so, the paradoxical outcome is that the numbers of working class clergy will always be relatively low, because aspirational middle class communities will feel unable to relate to them. By contrast, middle class clergy will more easily gain the respect of both working class and middle class people. (And there'll always be a few really posh ones to minister to the upper classes.)

That's how it seems to me. Of course, churchgoing in the UK as a whole has gradually become more middle class, and the clergy who are recruited from lower social backgrounds are soon acculturated into a more middle class approach, whether they are aware of it or not.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem isn't that support should be given to a minority. Nobody disputed that provision should be made for those who were faithful servants of the church and were part of the church when the church changed. It was the abusive behaviour of those put in to support, who chose to empire build and encourage the ordination of those priests who wanted to insist on the previous situation and not accept that the Anglican church they were being ordained into had changed. And that has poisoned the situation for everyone.
I'm not so certain about this interpretation. One thing which was clear is that the language of the CoE provisions were purposely designed so that a multiplicity of perspectives could be sustained-- perhaps very Anglican, but not workable in the long or medium term.

The minority used the provisions as laid out-- hardly abusive, I would have thought-- and then discovered that the majority had not expected that they would have continued doing so.

This was one of these treasured and admired (and intellectually dishonest) Anglican compromises which flamed out. I would blame the poison on those who wrote up the compromise, those who accepted it, and those who voted for it; which would suggest that there's lots of blame to go around.

Other, perhaps equally intellectually dishonest, Anglican compromises have endured, likely because folk wanted them to succeed. After all, most of us spend our lives in the Kingdom of Fudge.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The clergy who are recruited from lower social backgrounds are soon acculturated into a more middle class approach, whether they are aware of it or not.
Like ++George Carey ... who (I suspect) was extremely aware of it!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
This might partly be on account of the committee process used to select bishops in the CoE; there's little chance of a wild card as produced by elections or a benevolent sovereign (or her PM).
I suspect that selection by election would be even worse, unless and until the CofE adopts a more credible attitude to elections than that used for the House of Laity in General Synod. The most likely option would be that the bishop would be elected by the clergy of the diocese - who would therefore be choosing their own boss. Not an entirely good idea.

As for choice by royal prerogative exercised by the PM, that was the system that we've been delivered from.

Apart from the RCs where the Pope chooses, how do other people do it?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
The appointment system for CofE Bishops has developed quite a bit over the last halfcentury- from fairly unfettered Crown (Prime Ministerial) discretion to an Appointment Commission which offered two names with some Prime Ministerial discretion after 1977 to effectively removing the PM's role (and I think strengthening the influence of the diocesan representatives) after 2007. It would be interesting to see a atudy- perhaps someone has already done one- comparing the backgrounds of Bishops nominated under each system.
Leaving aside the question of social background, I'm not convinced that the changes in the system have produced 'better' bishops, or at least that the previous systems, at least in the C20, produced bad appointments as a rule. There is, I know, a view that the post-2007 system has produced Bishops with a more narrowly local focus, with less 'leadership' capacity for the Church as a whole.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
There is, I know, a view that the post-2007 system has produced Bishops with a more narrowly local focus, with less 'leadership' capacity for the Church as a whole.
Or, conversely, bishops who see their role as spokesmen and legislators, and spend most of their time on the media or in the house of Lords. If they are not that, they tend to be managers rather than pastors.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
The question about time spent in the Lords is an interesting one. I've been looking at this lately and on the whole attendance at the Lords has increased in recent years, and the range of subjects spoken on is a bit wider than it was say 50 years ago. But the jury is sill out on whether the post-2007 system has affected that: don't forget that it will usually take at least three or four years before any bishop (other than an Archbishop or London, Durham, or Winchester, who go straight into the House) will become senior enough to take one of the other 21 seats. So the system is still quite new. On the other hand, the reforms to the Lords since 1999 have produced more of an expectation that members of all kinds will be more active in the House. So it's hard to reach a conclusion as yet.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Apart from the RCs where the Pope chooses, how do other people do it?

The system here varies from diocese to diocese, again, a very Anglican manner. In Sydney, for example, there's a series of ballots, starting with the selection of candidates thought worthy of greater consideration, down to the final ballot to choose a new archbishop. Each ballot consists of the separately counted votes of laity and clergy, with each parish having selected the laity to vote for it. Only a simple majority is needed to proceed from one stage to the next and obviously at the first stages each elector has as many votes as there are remaining candidates. The last election, was unusual in that only 1 of the 2 candidates succeeded in obtaining majorities at the first stage.

The only other diocese of which I have even a passing knowledge is Newcastle. Dangerous Deacon shall correct me but my recollection is that there are ballots until a candidate obtains a 2/3 majority of both clergy and laity. From memory, that is also the US position, but there is the added requirement that the result be endorsed by a majority of the other dioceses within a time period.

I cannot speak at all of other States, but ++ Sydney, as Metropolitan of NSW may disallow an election in other dioceses in his jurisdiction. AFAIK, that has never happened, but there was speculation that the election of +Sarah McNeill to Grafton may have been disallowed by ++ Glenn Sydney, who is opposed to OoW as priests, let alone their elevation to the episcopate. That he did not is thought interesting.

Assistant bihops are appointed the diocesan, on advice.

[ 06. August 2014, 09:54: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
In Wales, BTW, diocesans are elected by an Electoral College connsisting of the Archbishop and the other Diocesan Bishops, six clerical and the six lay Episcopal Electors from the diocese of which the see is vacant; and the first three clerical and the first three lay Episcopal Electors on the list of each of the other five dioceses. Episcopal Electiors are elected my memebsr of each Diocesan Conference for, I think, three years at a time.
Assistant bishops (there is only one at present) are nominated by their Diocesan, subject to the approval of the nomination by the other members of the Bench of Bishops.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I agree that there is an issue with the clergy being incredibly middle class, but in a church which is very middle class, what are you going to do?
While there's a big difference between being posh middle class and being well educated, the posh often are well educated, not the least because their families have the resources to educate them to their highest ability. While we don't need posh clergy, we certainly need clergy of intelligence and education, because they have to be able to explain what they teach to the rest of us. If a disproportionate number of those seeking vocations are from middle class backgrounds, what can you do about it? There's no requirement to come from any background, but the ability to understand and disseminate the faith is essential. Well educated a must. Posh no.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's not fair, it's not acceptable, and it legitimises bigotry.
The constraints on what may be discussed in Purgatory prevent me from giving a full response to this, but I take it that you'd like to see faithful Anglicans, by definition of the Lambeth Conference, expelled from the Church of England, even if they've been members for life, because they Church has moved its goalposts and they find it difficult to follow? The recent legislation has been delayed for several years in an attempt to be inclusive and please, as far as possible, everyone. I think the C of E has made a brave attempt at this, and I congratulate them for it!
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:


Apart from the RCs where the Pope chooses, how do other people do it?
The Pope makes the final decision in the Latin Church but it is based on a terna or list of 3 names drawn up by the nuncio to the relevant country. Now of course the Pope is free to appoint someone not on the terna if he so wishes. In fact Benedict XVI did so when he appointed Mark Davies to Shrewsbury iirc.

Appointment of bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches is different; the Pope plays no direct role outside of the diasporas.

[ 06. August 2014, 13:56: Message edited by: CL ]
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
Addendum to previous post: there is an exception I forgot to mention; in several of the dioceses of the old Imperial Church (i.e. Germany, Switzerland, Austria) the cathedral chapter is involved in the selection of bishops as well as the Holy See.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem isn't that support should be given to a minority. Nobody disputed that provision should be made for those who were faithful servants of the church and were part of the church when the church changed. It was the abusive behaviour of those put in to support, who chose to empire build and encourage the ordination of those priests who wanted to insist on the previous situation and not accept that the Anglican church they were being ordained into had changed. And that has poisoned the situation for everyone.
The problem is that the people concerned didn't think of themselves as empire building. They thought of themselves as defending the interests of an embattled but legitimate minority position. Which, from their side of the scanner, isn't an unreasonable view. And, if they were empire building they have done a pretty bad job of it. I can think of plenty of churches and individuals which have shifted position towards favouring the Ordination of Women since it started. I'm not aware of anywhere which has moved in the opposite direction. Even Chichester, which was modelled on the Cave of Adullam in the early nineties, now has a lady Archdeacon. Eppi Si Muove and all that.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Are there countries where the state authorities have some role in the appointment of RC Bishops, CL? I think that in Alsace and Lorrraine (where the French laicisation legislation of 1905 never applied), the French government has some kind of involvement, doesn't it?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Are there countries where the state authorities have some role in the appointment of RC Bishops, CL? I think that in Alsace and Lorrraine (where the French laicisation legislation of 1905 never applied), the French government has some kind of involvement, doesn't it?
This page suggests that there is some sort of veto on the part of the French republic, but provides us with little detail.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Alsace and Lorraine do not have the complete separation of Church and State which other parts of France have.There is a church tax, as in Germany, which pays for the clergy as well as some charitable works undertaken by the churches.
One of the striking differences is that state sponsored
war memorials may have a Christian theme to them.
I'm not sure if the French President plays any role in the appointment of Catholic bishops in Alsace and Lorraine .
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Gildas / Augustine - those who particularly empire built are now in the Ordinariate.

I still disagree with and challenge that choice of continuing to ordain men into a church when those men could not accept that church as it was now. It seemed to be all done in the hope that the whole thing was a ghastly mistake that would get changed back in the fullness of time.

(I have contacts who were at theological college with said empire builders and fell out with them over it. Others of the PEVs, and the same social group, did not go down that route.)
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Indeed, Curiosity, that may well be, as I challenge and disagree with the result of the most recent federal election in Canada. That I did not like it did not alter the results or its implications.

Famously the Act of Synod was carefully written so as to admit of multiple interpretations. Many people opposed it on the grounds you state but eventually folded as otherwise the measure would have not proceeded at that time.

As well, the widely discussed "period of reception" left open the possibility that it was a mistake and could be reversed (as happened in one of the Baltic churches IIRC), as much as it could mean a period where opposers could get used to the reality and accept it (which was largely what happened). The great and good gave us lots of "period of reception" waffle at the time.

The intent, more Anglicano (if I can dip back into my high school Latin), was to provide cover (or plausible deniability, as we ex-government types would rather say, there being more syllables involved) for multiple points of view. Those on either end of the stick were unhappy, one side as you have described, and the other now largely into the Ordinariate or one of the continuing churches (perhaps the last place outside these boards where this discussion still takes place).

This situation is textbook case of the virtues and pitfalls of the Anglican notion of including opposing points of view. This time, it largely if untidily worked in the favour of one perspective. It is also an example of Anglicanism's passive-aggressive approach to its minorities.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
There is, I know, a view that the post-2007 system has produced Bishops with a more narrowly local focus, with less 'leadership' capacity for the Church as a whole.
Or, conversely, bishops who see their role as spokesmen and legislators, and spend most of their time on the media or in the house of Lords. If they are not that, they tend to be managers rather than pastors.
It is worth noting that the current system in the C of E looks not just at the needs and views of the diocese, but also at what might be called "national" issues and responsibilities. The idea being that a bishop is not just for the diocese but has a role to play among the whole house of bishops in matters across the whole country.

This affects the kind of people being chosen, I think. You are less likely to get the maverick, one-offs and more likely to go for people who will fit in with the current ethos and structure; someone to be a "team player". Such an approach will probably tend to be biased towards people who already have similar backgrounds to the existing bishops.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I agree that there is an issue with the clergy being incredibly middle class, but in a church which is very middle class, what are you going to do?
While there's a big difference between being posh middle class and being well educated, the posh often are well educated, not the least because their families have the resources to educate them to their highest ability. While we don't need posh clergy, we certainly need clergy of intelligence and education, because they have to be able to explain what they teach to the rest of us. If a disproportionate number of those seeking vocations are from middle class backgrounds, what can you do about it? There's no requirement to come from any background, but the ability to understand and disseminate the faith is essential. Well educated a must. Posh no.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's not fair, it's not acceptable, and it legitimises bigotry.
The constraints on what may be discussed in Purgatory prevent me from giving a full response to this, but I take it that you'd like to see faithful Anglicans, by definition of the Lambeth Conference, expelled from the Church of England, even if they've been members for life, because they Church has moved its goalposts and they find it difficult to follow? The recent legislation has been delayed for several years in an attempt to be inclusive and please, as far as possible, everyone. I think the C of E has made a brave attempt at this, and I congratulate them for it!
I'm not going to answer the DH-related question here, because DH, but suffice to say that there are those of us who have much bigger reasons to struggle to remain in the CoE related to other DHs, yet do so with far less whining and IMO far more of an idea of what it means to be a loyal Anglican.

Intelligence =/= well educated. Aside from the fact that 'well educated' is an incredibly subjective idea, and very much culturally-defined, equating intelligence with formal education is deeply problematic for a number of reasons - not least issues of disabilities and developmental/intellectual disabilities in particular. Is someone who did poorly at school due to undiagnosed ADHD (very common in women with ADHD, who are seriously under-diagnosed) less intelligent? What about someone with undiagnosed dyslexia (my sister, who only left school in 2010 was not diagnosed until 2009 - so even with modern knowledge of dyslexia, it goes undetected)? What about those brought up in foster care, or made homeless during their GCSEs, or struggling to cope in dysfunctional families (whether addiction or other issues are present or not), or too poor to do A Levels now EMA has gone? Or, you know, just trying to survive in a toxic environment which means that academic things have to take a back seat? Because shit happens to young people too, but it's incredibly hard to get back into formal education after a break - and very expensive as all fees have to be paid upfront. Also, just plain old physical disability, in particular chronic and invisible disabilities/illnesses. My best friend left school at 14 due to the severity of her ME, and was cared for by her mother (fortunately a teacher, although she didn't carry on with any formal education because she just couldn't manage it and the pain). She is now 25 and significantly less qualified than me (and I barely have a whole A Level). Like fuck is she not intelligent.

We need more clergy with developmental/intellectual disabilities and neurological issues (eg dyslexia, dyscalculia, ADHD, ASD etc) who known Christ in the fragility of an unacknowledged existence. We need more clergy who have known Christ in the vulnerability of homelessness. We need more clergy who have known Christ in the rejection of family and friends. We need more clergy who have known Christ in the hunger and wretched vice of poverty. We need more clergy who have known Christ in the unending reality of chronic pain.

I totally agree that a theologically-literate and intelligent clergy is necessary. I reject the idea that this is only shown in formal qualifications. Theology is meaningless unless demonstrated and with the knowledge as to how live it out. I can assure you that the homeless, disabled, poor and neuroatypical have more theological education lived theology in their little fingers than many 'well educated' people have in their entire beings.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Being accepted for ministry is an excellent way to get a free education, so background isn't a deciding factor. Not that it is for education in general: in Britain, tuition is loaned up-front, and payback doesn't kick in unless a person's on a decent wage.

I've snarked about patricians in the church, but that's more about a clubhouse attitude than it is education, or even background (Carey had it in spades, and could never be accused of chomping down on a silver spoon).
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[...] So, inconvenient though it may be, I now think the CofE is right to have done what it can to accommodate those who haven't agreed with the majority view, particularly bearing in mind that although one may disagree with them, they are not heretics.
Toleration's not the problem: the problem is that they demand their view be imposed on the rest of the church. The moment someone demands that, toleration ought to be withdrawn. If it isn't, you're not tolerating them, you're surrendering to them.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Being accepted for ministry is an excellent way to get a free education, so background isn't a deciding factor. Not that it is for education in general: in Britain, tuition is loaned up-front, and payback doesn't kick in unless a person's on a decent wage.

I've snarked about patricians in the church, but that's more about a clubhouse attitude than it is education, or even background (Carey had it in spades, and could never be accused of chomping down on a silver spoon).
Tuition for further education (A Levels and qualifications of that level) is not loaned up-front and can be extremely expensive if you're not going into it straight from school. Yes, getting into university doesn't require a particular background but it does require particular qualifications, which many people miss out on for the reasons I outlined above. If you fail all your GCSEs due to misdiagnosis of a neurological condition (for example) and you can't afford to resit, you can kiss goodbye to any kind of degree without doing an Access course first. Which costs money.

[ 06. August 2014, 19:09: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Tuition for further education (A Levels and qualifications of that level) is not loaned up-front and can be extremely expensive if you're not going into it straight from school. Yes, getting into university doesn't require a particular background but it does require particular qualifications, which many people miss out on for the reasons I outlined above. If you fail all your GCSEs due to misdiagnosis of a neurological condition (for example) and you can't afford to resit, you can kiss goodbye to any kind of degree without doing an Access course first. Which costs money.
A lot of the access courses are funded as HE courses now though, so while they're expensive they're not upfront costly. The bigger issue is that if you're not used to the system it's a daunting minefield to navigate, doubly so if the reason you've been out of education is linked to your mental health or learning disability.

[ 06. August 2014, 19:23: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Tuition for further education (A Levels and qualifications of that level) is not loaned up-front and can be extremely expensive if you're not going into it straight from school. Yes, getting into university doesn't require a particular background but it does require particular qualifications, which many people miss out on for the reasons I outlined above. If you fail all your GCSEs due to misdiagnosis of a neurological condition (for example) and you can't afford to resit, you can kiss goodbye to any kind of degree without doing an Access course first. Which costs money.
Ah, my mistake, I was focused on college tuition. Sorry about that.

This sounds like an area in which the church could do more, although a diocese may sponsor something like the Certificate in Christian Studies, or negotiate with a university on a candidate's behalf.

Personally, I don't buy into the concept of an ordained priesthood. Anyone ought to be able to officiate at the Eucharist, as many churches license lay people to preach. If priests were no longer viewed as a caste apart, it'd do wonders to close the gap.

You could still have people appointed to run congregations full time, but they'd just be people trained in the relevant vocational skills. There's no reason that different skillsets can't be separated out, either: one person trained in parish management, another trained in preaching, another in liturgy, and so on. Concentrating the lot in one person inevitably leads to shortfalls in some areas.
 
Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :
 
I'm an ordinand at theological college. The people here are varied, mostly middle class (ish) but with a number who don't fit straightforwardly into that grouping. Training probably makes you more middle class. There are people who have struggled with each of the things Jade C mentioned, with the possible exception of homelessness. I see a reasonable amount of variety going into ordained ministry even from one residential college (out of a dozen or so, plus plenty of regional non residential places which are, I'm told, hugely more varied). I don't see this variety further up the hierarchy, and I do pray that that will change in time.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
A lot of the access courses are funded as HE courses now though, so while they're expensive they're not upfront costly. The bigger issue is that if you're not used to the system it's a daunting minefield to navigate, doubly so if the reason you've been out of education is linked to your mental health or learning disability.
Very true, although this is a separate issue to economic and cultural background. (Admittedly class factors into it.)

It also cuts both ways: how many people from blue collar backgrounds want to be ordained? Some would if they were given more encouragement and resources, but if you don't come from a background where education is emphasized, a few years studying theology and ancient Greek isn't the easiest sell!
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
I'm an ordinand at theological college. The people here are varied, mostly middle class (ish) but with a number who don't fit straightforwardly into that grouping. Training probably makes you more middle class. There are people who have struggled with each of the things Jade C mentioned, with the possible exception of homelessness. I see a reasonable amount of variety going into ordained ministry even from one residential college (out of a dozen or so, plus plenty of regional non residential places which are, I'm told, hugely more varied). I don't see this variety further up the hierarchy, and I do pray that that will change in time.
A major issue in English Anglicanism is that bishops are appointed, not elected, as they are in many other Anglican churches. If you wanted a system to give jobs-to-the-boys, you couldn't design better if you tried.

Again skirting around a DH, much of Canterbury's incomprehension at Gene Robinson's election was down to this difference in process & culture. Why couldn't those bloody Episcopalians just quietly force him out, as England did to Jeffrey John? How could the Presiding Bishop fail to see that he was no company man?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
It also cuts both ways: how many people from blue collar backgrounds want to be ordained? Some would if they were given more encouragement and resources, but if you don't come from a background where education is emphasized, a few years studying theology and ancient Greek isn't the easiest sell!
Why study Greek as a compulsory course? There's plenty of good and accessible resources around if you need them. Some of them free and on line.

[code]

[ 07. August 2014, 06:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
A lot of the access courses are funded as HE courses now though, so while they're expensive they're not upfront costly. The bigger issue is that if you're not used to the system it's a daunting minefield to navigate, doubly so if the reason you've been out of education is linked to your mental health or learning disability.
Very true, although this is a separate issue to economic and cultural background. (Admittedly class factors into it.)

It also cuts both ways: how many people from blue collar backgrounds want to be ordained? Some would if they were given more encouragement and resources, but if you don't come from a background where education is emphasized, a few years studying theology and ancient Greek isn't the easiest sell!
I'm not sure characterising blue-collar/working class backgrounds as not emphasizing education is very fair. In many cases, education is emphasized and it's the education system which works against that. I saw it all the time when living in hostels.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Why study Greek as a compulsory course? There's plenty of good and accessible resources around if you need them. Some of them free and on line.
As ordained ministers are responsible for interpreting the Bible for their congregation, if they don't know any Greek (and, preferably, Hebrew), they're wholly reliant on others. It's not their interpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not sure characterising blue-collar/working class backgrounds as not emphasizing education is very fair. In many cases, education is emphasized and it's the education system which works against that. I saw it all the time when living in hostels.
Of course many do, but we were talking about people who came from a working class background who couldn't access education and training without extensive help. Someone who's a successful autodidact would already be well on their way.

People also emphasize education for different reasons. Many from a middle class background don't value education for its own sake, but as a means to an end.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Why study Greek as a compulsory course? There's plenty of good and accessible resources around if you need them. Some of them free and on line.
As ordained ministers are responsible for interpreting the Bible for their congregation, if they don't know any Greek (and, preferably, Hebrew), they're wholly reliant on others. It's not their interpretation.
Wholeheartedly agree - and I think is sad that manyseminaries no longer insist on either language.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Why study Greek as a compulsory course? There's plenty of good and accessible resources around if you need them. Some of them free and on line.
As ordained ministers are responsible for interpreting the Bible for their congregation, if they don't know any Greek (and, preferably, Hebrew), they're wholly reliant on others. It's not their interpretation.
Wholeheartedly agree - and I think is sad that manyseminaries no longer insist on either language.
One of the great historical strengths of the Church of Scotland was in how its clergy, many of whom came from desperately poor backgrounds, worked without stinting on learning the biblical languages. Even now, some of the most dedicated scholars I know came from underprivileged (and a few whose upbringing was in circumstances of oppression) backgrounds and whose love for learning overcame limitations. Cracking down on the Greek and Hebrew helps the cleric enter into the mind of that period, and transcend the boundaries of our own time, and thus equip them to do the prophetic and teaching sides of their job (PS-- it doesn't always work, but it is a help).
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Are there countries where the state authorities have some role in the appointment of RC Bishops, CL? I think that in Alsace and Lorrraine (where the French laicisation legislation of 1905 never applied), the French government has some kind of involvement, doesn't it?
Civil involvement in appointment of bishops hasn't occurred anywhere for a long, long time. The current Code of Canon Law states the following:

quote:
Canon 377 §5: For the future, no rights or privileges of election, appointment, presentation or designation of Bishops are conceded to civil authorities.

 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
When was that bit of canon law created because any civil involvement before that is NOT covered by it. You can not concede whatever is already conceded.

Jengie
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oh, I see. I did do a bit of digging around on this and found this article from Le Figaro (in French) which suggests that although the Archbishops of Strasbourg and Metz are technically appointed by the President of the Republic, in practice the Pope's nomination is accepted. Presumably for this reason it can be seen as fitting in with the requirements of Canon Law. And, yes, good point, Jengie- surely the wording 'for the future' means that no new state role in appointments can be created.

[ 08. August 2014, 15:12: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
When was that bit of canon law created because any civil involvement before that is NOT covered by it. You can not concede whatever is already conceded.

Jengie
That specific canon is from 1983 but the same provision has been present since 1917. Whatever vestigial investiture privileges remain with secular authorities are in practice obsolete and have been for a century.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
If you are reading them as obsolete from that canon or the preceding one I am afraid you are mistaken and should re-read the wording.It is very precise (as canons should be) and does not remove rights already conceded. It says it will not give any more away, but not that it will remove any conceded in the past. In other words I do not think it says what you want it to say.

Jengie

[ 08. August 2014, 19:58: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
If you are reading them as obsolete from that canon or the preceding one I am afraid you are mistaken and should re-read the wording.It is very precise (as canons should be) and does not remove rights already conceded. It says it will not give any more away, but not that it will remove any conceded in the past. In other words I do not think it says what you want it to say.

Jengie
No, I am saying that irrespective of canon law, any investiture rights that existed prior to 1917 are either defunct, not exercised or only exercised in accordance with the wishes of Rome. The example of France and Alsace-Lorraine is instructive; the French president only "appoints" who the Pope nominates. There is simply no question of French president today trying to appoint his own candidate to a see. This is also the case in the dozen or so countries in which such investiture rights nominally exist. It is also the case that since Vatican II Rome has actively sought to remove or render an even deader letter any such nominal rights

The last time a European government tried to interfere with regards to episcopal appointments saw Liechtenstein being removed from the diocese of Chur and the Archdiocese of Vaduz being erected. Rome simply will not tolerate secular meddling in her internal governance.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
The canon is quite clear about existing rights. They continue to exist.

Most of the countries where nominal investiture rights remain have chosen not to involve themselves in the selection procedure. There's really no win for a government in getting involved in episcopal nominations. There is an argument that effective disuse of investiture rights will result in them becoming nominal, then expiring, but this is an issue over which canonists have been disputing for some centuries.

An acquaintance of mine has written a Canadian constitutional history paper on how, after the appointment of Michael Power as Bishop of Toronto in 1841, Lord Stanley (then Colonial Secretary) instructed the Lt Governor of Canada West that he was to ratify the Vatican's choice (formal consultations on the choice preceded the decision, which was followed by a formal recognition by the Crown), but that governors were no longer to concern themselves with ecclesiastical appointments-- it was a lot of political trouble for relatively little advantage. Doubtless other governments have come around to this point of view.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0