George Browning Pearls and Irritations The Anglican breakaway ‘cult’ – a swan that quacks like a duck must be a duck
Fergus Butler-Gallie The Spectator The depressing rise of the cathedral gimmick
“Even our most sacred spaces have begun the process of Westfield-isation”
What has been revealed by Bishop George Browning’s excellent summarisation of the Australian Anglican schism, is that the Sydney bishops (at least) are behaving in a dangerously duplicitous way. While claiming loyalty to the authority they hold as Bishops in the Anglican Church in Australia (ACA), they are actively supporting the breakaway ‘Diocese of The Southern Cross’ by their public membership of Gafcon – which has authored the schism. How can they be allowed to continue in this double-entendre?
Dr. Davies says he will support “women ministers” in DioSC, and will “help them flourish.” No mention of whether as deacons only or as priests as well, although he does mention preaching. Condie is worried that the diocese might end up with some unmarried ministers.
Bishop Richard Condie was asked about women ministers in the Diocese of the Southern Cross by the ABC’s Andy Parks on Radio National. He said that Glenn Davies would be licensing women as Rectors noting that this would be different from what Davies did in Sydney.
Back when ACNA was forming in the US, Robert Duncan insisted on allowing female priests. Some hard-liners (favoring men only) now claim Duncan was looking to build up the numbers for ACNA and now lament that ordination of women was permitted. How dear was Davies’ conviction about no female presbyters (assuming that a rector will be a presbyter) when he was archbishop of Sydney? Condie says Davies will license women as rectors; will he ordain them?
Well, folks. That’s the way of the new quasi-Anglican confection. I don’t know, though, what Davies’ bosses at Moore College will make of his sudden accommodation for women priests. However, Davies himself has probably come to the realisation that without the help of women in Australia, his new diocese won’t get far.
I genuinely don’t understand Browning’s article. “There is no space within this One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for a person or group to decide a particular aspect of biblical truth, as they interpret it, carries sufficient weight to define membership and exclude others.” Then why do we say the creeds each week? Didn’t a group decide that they were important enough to define membership in the church? “Members of the Anglican Church are not permitted to engage in any practice which is not acceptable to the International Anglican Communion through Canterbury as it focus.” Isn’t that what you just… Read more »
It seems like a win-win-win situation for the Diocese of the Southern Cross. Australian bishops will have to moderate their progressive agendas in order to prevent their conservative clergy and flock changing allegiance. Those that do join the new DotSC remain Anglican in the eyes of the majority of Anglicans worldwide. And who knows maybe a GAFCON friendly Archbishop of Canterbury will be appointed now that the wider Anglican Communion is better represented in the appointment process.
Given the constitutional constraints the next ABC is still likely to be an English diocesan.
I don’t know how things work in Australia but I imagine if clergy and flock want to leave like here, they can’t take the buildings with them
The constitutional constraints include the fact that within England the Archbishop of Canterbury has national precedence next after the Queen and the most senior members of the Royal Family, ahead of, e.g., the Prime Minister. It hasn’t prevented a Scottish or Welsh appointment (Tait and Rowan Williams respectively). When I studied constitutional law, aeons ago, a Roman Catholic could not be Lord Chancellor – not the same issue exactly, but a similar constraint – and I suspect that the Archbishop will have to be a UK citizen. Presumably these issues were considered in the ‘new’ arrangements – one would hope… Read more »
And Cosmo Gordon Lang, Rowland. I hope ( and expect ) the next ABC will be an English diocesan. I have always felt Lord Halifax’s “a alterius orbis papa” was fanciful.
Interestingly, Lang was born in the Church of Scotland of which his father became Moderator. His brother Norman McLeod Lang was Bishop of Leicester, then a Suffragan see, and later Assistant Bishop in Peterborough Diocese. (Another brother remained in the Church of Scotland and also became Moderator.) In my youth, possibly around 65 years ago, I recall a Bishop Lang at Winchester Cathedral (he was neither Diocesan nor Suffragan there) but at present I cannot find any record of this, although I have a vivid memory of his appearance. I received Communion from him several times. I rather suspect that… Read more »
I think the bishop you are recalling at Winchester was Leslie Lang, Cosmo’s second cousin. The below is pasted from something I put on TA earlier this year.
Leslie Hamilton Lang (1889-1974), second cousin of Cosmo Gordon Lang whose domestic chaplain he once was, in 1947 resigned as Bishop Suffragan of Woolwich to become Archdeacon of Winchester, a canon of Winchester and an assistant bishop in the Diocese of Winchester.
Many thanks. He is clearly the man. I’m afraid I missed your earlier post, otherwise I would have made the connection. I remember him, probably in the 1950s, as a tall dignified man, always in Convocation robes.
It is recorded in the Wikipedia entry for Leslie Lang that Archbishop Fisher would have liked him to become Bishop of Portsmouth in 1949. In the event Portsmouth went to someone else with Scottish roots, Launcelot Fleming.
Strange that when I made several Google searches for Bishop Lang and Winchester, that result never came up. But it totally confirms one feature of my recollection of him – which I didn’t like to mention. He always wore a white glove, more like a sock, on his injured hand when administering the chalice.
Portsmouth was, of course ’a child’ of Winchester, whose formidable Dean in those years, Gordon Selwyn, disapproved of its attaining its own majority!
Accessible on:
https://www.britishpathe.com/video/the-passing-of-lord-lang
is a very short (1 minute) newsreel account of the funeral of Cosmo Lang at Westminster Abbey in 1945.The family are shown exiting the Abbey, and one of them is wearing a very conspicuous pectoral cross. Fairly obviously that is Norman Lang. It is at 29 seconds into the newsreel.
Brilliant detective work! Thank you. I looked hard for Bishop Leslie who, almost certainly, would have been there, but did not see him or, at any rate, recognise him. Prime Minister Clement Attlee was very obvious. Two possibles, but far from certain, the prelate in Canterbury cap might have been Archbishop Garbett of York (who, as Bishop of Southwark, confirmed my mother) and Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke – but even less certain about the latter.
Yes the field for ABC is still very limited, and within that field few would satisfy the requirements of GAFCON. But the tectonic plates of Anglicanism are shifting and all kinds of future realignments are possible. If the TEC/ACNA property disputes are anything to go by, the legalities are heavily contested and the outcomes are inconsistent.
I suspect that “property disputes” generate much of the heat in this disagreement. But the immediate cause of confusion in Browning’s article is that he is arguing from a position he already believes in, but trying to present it as an argument towards that position.
What the legalities are in Australia It would be interesting to know. I doubt if the legalities for the C of E would be contested .I don’t think any of the likely candidates among the English diocesan bishops would be acceptable to Gafcon. A woman certainly wouldn’t.
Rev Butler-Gallie’s article completely misses the point -and wants me to go to my nearest cathedral to encourage them to get more helter-skelters, giant jelly beans, crazy golf courses or dinosaurs! He completely misses the point and the challenge of cathedrals. They need more visitors – events and exhibitions are good to draw new people in. There is an economic issue here. That not everything is banal – much thought has been given to globes or space rockets or prehistoric creatures. In these contexts, rather than domesticate (or Westfield-ise) cathedrals, it gives a context to help people to think about… Read more »
Perhaps the cathedrals could arrange for their choirs to hold concerts in the center courts of the malls? “Flash mob” performances are very popular…perhaps one of those?
One cannot but reflect on precisely why Jesus took the trouble to ‘cleanse the Temple’ – if it were not with the intention of drawing attention to the holiness of dedicated spaces that are given over to worship and a simple ‘being with God’ apart from the world.
Jesus cleansed the temple of the money-changers, who were knowingly putting a stumbling block in the way of those who came to worship God, by forcing them to change their secular currency for temple currency, at a higher rate than necessary (if indeed the temple currency was even necessary). There is no suggestion that today’s cathedral attractions are intentionally defrauding or distracting visitors. Every cathedral that does this will have thought long and hard about how to balance the many needs present. There remains lots of space for worship and being with God. For example, in Chester, the model trains… Read more »
I think this is an interesting line of argument, which often has the effect of softening or secularising the message of certain biblical passages. Of course the secularising majority would accept the notion that Jesus was objecting to fraud, extortion or deception, because the majority agree that those are wrong. The more radical view is that Jesus was objecting to the secularisation of a sacred space. Of course the secularising majority won’t agree with that. The question is, which of the two messages are we to take home, and why?
I agree that is the passage with the most relevance. It’s part of why I believe admission charges to the main bodies of churches and cathedrals is sinful and, being in many things a hardline traditionalist, I would include charging for concerts. (One could even argue that cathedral shops are contrary to the Bible if they are on consecrated ground.) So in relation any of these exhibitions which are charged, I am in full agreement with you. If there is no charges involved, then I think it comes down personal taste as to the exhibition or artwork involved. Some of… Read more »
We may not like charging, but to call it sinful is pushing it a bit. Most cathedrals are pretty open about people coming in to pray rather than paying, but I would say its more an issue of good stewardship rather than sin. Goodness me – we are fallen enough without discretionary charging being brought into the sinful fold!!
Are all activities which somebody claims to be “against the Bible” thereby sinful, in your view? Or is there some other criterion you use?
Surely what the Bible says is ‘sin’ is what people living in 700BC or 100AD thought was sin? No doubt prayerful thought (and cultural influences) went into their definitions, but that doesn’t mean they were always right.
The Bible is not some ‘magic’ and ‘inerrant’ book.
It is people wrestling and struggling and trying their best to make sense of encounters with God, like we all do.
The question for me is how people posting here decide that some things prohibited in the Bible are indeed sinful, and other things are not. It seems clear to me that in some cases at least that decision is made on other grounds, not explicitly articulated, but supported by reference to apparently general principles such as “forbidden by the Bible”, or “the way society is moving”.
Here, here!!!!
Where? Where? You mean hear, hear!
If one is raising a child, to start with parents will have a list of dos and don’ts. As the child matures, that will change to teaching the child to determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. In this case the relationship is between Our Father and his people as his child. As we the people have matured, what we need has changed from a list of dos and don’ts to encouragement to make our own decisions. So, within that context, I agree that we have moved beyond some of the simplistic rights and wrongs from 5000… Read more »
Why do we need the bible to tell us what is right and wrong? We surely decide that for ourselves. Presumably Orthodox Putin has read the bible and has decided he can invade Ukraine. Many of us think he’s wrong but don’t need an ancient scripture to think he’s a wicked dictator.
I don’t think there is any doubt that charging to enter a temple of the Lord (which is any consecrated building) or for access to any sacrament is sin. Do you believe there is any Biblical evidence to the contrary?
But that’s a different argument. Firstly, there clearly is doubt, since presumably the cathedral deans and so on disagree with your position. Secondly, you started by saying that there was scriptural warrant for your position: now you’re saying that your warrant for your position is your own opinion and the absence of scriptural warrant against it. Those aren’t the same thing.
I’m sure you can see the point of the question if you apply it to a certain other topic, regarded as sinful on the basis of scriptural warrant.
There is clear Scripture already mentioned on this thread – Jesus clearing the Temple of those (authorised by Temple authorities) seeking to impose charges on Temple visitors. Jesus also spoke about those putting barriers between Him and children, “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” The fact that cathedral authorities disagree doesn’t mean anything: so did Temple authorities in Jesus’ day. “I’m sure you can see the point of the question if you apply it to a certain other topic, regarded as sinful on the… Read more »
It certainly means something: it means that there are people (whom we may presume to be well meaning and to have given thought to the matter) who disagree with you, and that means that, as I said, there clearly is doubt on the matter. That’s not to say that you’re wrong, merely that it is not clear that you are right.
You reject the Epistles too as sources of scriptural warrant, it seems.
Browning’s article describes a situation that sounds similar to the conservative evangelical ‘Co-Mission’ network in and around London. Am I right that the diocese of London ‘plays ball’ with these clergy and churches (they receive a licence from the bishop etc) while Southwark does not?
Are you suggesting that Co-Mission is a ‘cult’?
Nope. Just reflecting on these ‘church within a church’/dual affiliations which seem rather odd.
SSC. HTB. New Wine. SCP. Church Society, The Society of Hilda & Wilfrid. They’re all ginger groups/networks of affiliation. The Church has always had them. And they all have the potential to differentiate themselves from the mainstream CofE over some of the issues that have become trade mark differentiations on Thinking Anglicans. Arguably the dual affiliations have been a strength not a weakness.
The organisations you cite are all exclusively “CofE”. Co-Mission is not even Anglican so your assertion is incorrect.
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
Being “one of us” in this context is being a bible – believing fundamentalist. I agree such people aren’t bothered about demoninational niceties as long as everyone believes the same thing.
I understand what you are saying Tim but if you look at the hard line reformed evangelical Co-Mission statement of faith and their unliturgical worship and at the other end Roman rite parishes praying for Francis our Pope you might agree C of E comprehensiveness is being stretched beyond what is coherent. I can’t imagine the same variety of churchmanships pertains in the diocese of Calgary. It does raise, I think ( arguably to use bishop Pete’s word) a question about Anglican identify and integrity.
The Co-Mission clergy who operate in the Diocese of London are all licensed by the relevant Area Bishop and are Anglican clergy. We also operate with New Wine, who aren’t exclusively Anglican.
On their website Co-Mission describes themselves as “reformed evangelical”. I see no mention that they have any connection with the Church of England. If they are Anglican they appear to be as much of a church-within-a-church as the HTB network.
Glad to know someone thinks there still is a ” mainstream C of E” even in the diocese of London.
I visited Peterborough Cathedral with young children last week. It was a very good experience, a bit like having a wing of the Natural History Museum transplanted to the edge of the fens. The size and scale of the cathedral certainly suited the exhibition. Few other buildings would have done justice to the size of the T. Rex. It was busy mid week with visitors, especially families, and stewarded in a low key way. I hope they’ve made a lot of money. There are some questions for the dean and chapter of each cathedral planning such things: Is this reaching… Read more »
I would suggest that there is only one question: how does the event serve to spread the gospel?
That’s certainly not the only question. The cathedral may, for example, want families to gain a better knowledge of evolution to help them understand whether Genesis is to be understood literally or not.
Fascinating as it is to understand how to interpret Genesis, of far more importance to everyone is to know that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and God gives salvation and eternal life to those who trust in him.
I suppose – all things considered (spirituality included) – the Church ought to be seen to be accessible to everyone – not only the pure and holy. We all have our own personal understanding of what is acceptable in the eyes of God.
That is indeed a message that the Church, and Christians generally, need to get across: that people don’t go to church because they think they’re good, or pure, or holy, but because they know that they are not: and know what to do about it.
That is not generally knowledge that one acquires in isolation, however. If you want to share that knowledge you have to win the trust of those with whom you are sharing it. This may come in several aspects, including demonstrating Christ’s love in practical ways, but also demonstrating that you are not so wholly disconnected from God’s creation that you reject the evidence it offers of the earth’s history in favour of a literal interpretation of an ancient text.
Agreed. The purpose of the event may simply be encourage visitors to cross the threshold of the church, to meet and talk to Christians, with no mention of the gospel. But there should be an opportunity for the visitor to find out more. Not all will be seekers but some will.
Here in the Anglican Church of Canada, Harold Percy used to talk about a church’s ‘magnetic field’. There were many factors in it (advertising, lighting, invitation, welcome etc.), but he said ‘The most important factor by far is the quality of the lives lived by your members.’
For obvious reasons, that quote has stuck with me for thirty years now.