Jeremy Haselock Catholic Herald Own goal: the Church of England and the World Cup Final
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church Will we ever find a Safe Church?
Simon Butler ViaMedia.News Dear Bishop Christopher… An Open Response to my Diocesan Bishop after his Address to Southwark Diocesan Synod
– written in response to this Presidential Address to Diocesan Synod, 19 November 2022
Bishop Chessun dodges the issue that clergy in civil partnerships are expected to be celibate and can face disciplinary proceedings if they make it obvious that they are not.
I totally agree. Living in Love and Faith shamefully ignored the issue of compulsory celibacy for Lesbian and Gay priests and this unjust requirement could be abolished without a change in the Church of England’s teaching about the nature of Christian Marriage. I wrote this draft motion but it received a great deal of opposition even from a supposedly “liberal” parish. For over 450 years ever since its foundation, the Church of England has been opposed to the compulsory celibacy of it’s clergy. This doctrine is very well expressed in the 39 Articles. “32. Of the Marriage of Priests. Bishops,… Read more »
You are equating same sex relationships with opposite sex ones which the 39 articles would never have envisaged. I’m therefore not sure how quoting from the articles is relevant here. Perhaps you can help me out.
It’s very simple William. The 39 Articles is opposed to compulsory celibacy for priests. Before 2005 the situation was ambiguous and it continues to be in Ireland and Wales. After 2005 the Church of England demanded an explicit declaration of celibacy from Lesbian and Gay priests. This decision created first and second class priests: those who are allowed to express their physical love and those who are denied the right to express their love in a physical way. No such requirement is demanded of Anglican laity only clergy. It is true that the Church of England teaches that sex should… Read more »
The 39 articles is opposed to compulsory celibacy, in the sense that all male clergy should be free to marry a woman if they so wish. Reading anything else into it is wishful thinking I’m afraid.
I disagree. The 39 Articles were very much about the integration of the Church of England and the secular state, and the Crown in particular. It pleased the Crown, ie the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, to extend the definition of marriage to include same sex marriages. There is every reason to believe that for the Church of England that change therefore also extended to the 39 Articles – why would Her Late Majesty have been inconsistent? Your argument is solid for the other Anglican churches but not, I suggest, for the Church of England as the established… Read more »
So the Crown leads and the Church follows? Hardly a prophetic witness.
I am not expressing any opinion on the subject being discussed here, but I think it is worth quoting from the very first section of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. Section 1 subsections (3) to (5) state: (3) No Canon of the Church of England is contrary to section 3 of the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 (which provides that no Canons shall be contrary to the Royal Prerogative or the customs, laws or statutes of this realm) by virtue of its making provision about marriage being the union of one man with one woman. (4) Any… Read more »
“Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, to vow the estate of single life.”
That is clear enough even for you William.
Before 2005 the Church of England didn’t believe in compulsory celibacy and didn’t believe in first and second class priests.
The only logical position for ultra conservatives like you is to say that Lesbians and Gays are not eligible to be ordained. That is what I think you really believe.
Very well said, Fr. Dean.
As vehemently as I disagree with defenders of the traditional position, at least they have the courage of their convictions, instead of hiding them behind “a politician’s answer.”
May I also commend David for that fine draft motion. Compulsory celibacy was, I suspect, rooted in the hangups of Englishmen of a “public” school background, and it’s as cruel as it is demeaning to all concerned.
I agree with Simon Butler. The Guiding Principles settlement is being challenged with fresh calls from ‘reformers’. This subverts trust and confidence among ‘conservatives’ that an incremental approach to the sexuality impasse will not in the end lead to the ‘slippery slope’ where reformers use one gain to press for further gains. It will be better to hammer out a ‘complete package’ settlement in one go. To achieve this, cast-iron assurances must be built in to guarantee all parties protection and long-term inclusion and integration in the Church of England.
The Guiding Principles need to be ripped up and redone. They are formulaic words which sound like a compromise but fail to express how it should work at an individual level. In the end people on both sides get trampled. They need to be redone to fully embrace the ministry of women in ALL parishes and dioceses while also INCREASING the structural accommodation for those who cannot support the ordination of women.
“They need to be redone to fully embrace the ministry of women in ALL parishes and dioceses while also INCREASING the structural accommodation for those who cannot support the ordination of women.” I admit to being curious. How?
The same way that people have floated for same sex marriage – a separate province. There would be no problem with a traditional diocesan bishop if all the clergy and congregations within the diocese were also traditional. Equally, in that separate province nobody would have to receive ministry from a woman. At the same time, full provision to women could be provided in an affirming province.
All that stands in the way is the assumption provinces cannot overlap geographically. That’s not an article of faith for anyone so it can be changed.
Is that possible? How can future people, or those currently uninvolved in the process, be held to anything agreed today by those who are?
I’d suggest we think in generational timescales. The Church of England could, for example, establish commitments that are binding for (say) thirty years. Many English people are happy enough to assert that Scotland’s Independence Referendum was a once in a generation event (I don’t agree). Perhaps the English could commit their Church to the same principle: an undertaking that an agreed settlement won’t be altered for 30 years (and firming it up in law). Personally, I’d sooner see that, then have this debilitating debate on sex going on and on, year after year. The reason for my view on this… Read more »
I seem to recall that motions which lose can’t be brought back to Synod for a year – or is it for the life of that Synod? Whatever, that’s the timetable against which Synod was voting and it would be totally wrong to add retrospectively a new, longer timetable for revision after the vote has gone through. If there was a wish for the agreement to be immune from review or revision for longer than that then the relevant period should have been included within the Synod motion. That’s democracy.
I’m not sure that including in a Synod motion a statement that it is immune from revision would be democracy at all. Synod members are elected (by a very small franchise) on a time-limited basis. Democracy means they can be replaced with people who may not agree and can take a different view.
If Parliament were to seal it for thirty years, in advance of the decision, that might well make sense. Perhaps paradoxically, sealing for thirty years would be much more effective than trying to seal it indefinitely.
I agree.
The point is that it is undemocratic to argue that the settlement is immune from review and potential revision under a new Synod.
I’d like to see that, Susannah, but would any traditionalist believe them?
A hardheaded division of legal titles may be the only way forward. Voluntary ties could be maintained so long as people want, and perhaps the removal of the overhanging risk of coercion in either direction will create the space needed for grace to flourish.
Jeremy Haselock has perhaps highlighted a solution to the rapid decline of the Christian religion in England. If only more Parish Churches installed large-screen TVs instead of an altar, we could show football – or other non-sports events – instead of boring religion every week. As Canon Haselock observes, our evangelical brethren have abolished Anglican religion from their services in favour of “wacky” ideas from the internet. More non-religious people might attend Church if evangelicals can promise they’ll ensure no religious content is rammed down people’s throats, and only entertainment to make people grin will be allowed.
you haven’t been to many evangelical churches have you?
No. I prefer Anglican worship.
You’ve proved David Keen’s point. And to assert that evangelical churches are negative about Christian content (if that is what you mean by “religious”) is utterly absurd.
On the other hand the dead hand version of “religion” is probably thinner on the ground.
I didn’t suggest evangelicals are negative about Christian content. I agree with Canon Haselock that they’re happy to abolish the Anglican version in favour of “wacky” content. YouTube is overflowing with “CofE” evangelicals showing no trace of Anglicanism.
OK… I accept that. But you are rather sweeping in your criticism of “evangelicals”. They (we actually) are a rather diverse bunch. Some are, indeed, liturgy-lite.. though that’s where official Anglicanism has been heading for decades. So many evangelicals are in-step with that.
Its true that “we” are “broadly” concerned more with presenting Christ than the means… but aren’t all Anglicans that despite different outcomes? Presumably you believe an “altar” is useful… Can’t find that piece of furniture in my 1662PB… (winks!).
PS… YouTube… Best avoided. But “they” are attempting to communicate in a techno world.
My former synagogue installed large-screen monitors in what used to be the choir stalls. They show service content: text from the prayer service, Hebrew, transliterated Hebrew, and English translation for prayers being chanted or recited, etc., but nonetheless, live from the bimah (pulpit), it’s … Saturday morning!
That’s one of the reasons, not the main one, that it’s my former synagogue. When a worship service feels more like entertainment, more like performing clergy and listening audience than guiding clergy and participating congregation, I’m outa there.
Installing high quality audio-visual? Fantastic! I doubt many evangelicals would be screening the big match though.
Perhaps they’d show ‘The Chosen’, which, disagree as I do with its theology, has been impressing me greatly. If that’s an example of “whackiness”, bring it on.
Thank you Jeremy, couldn’t agree more.
I’m sorry Jeremy Haselock, but if England gets to the World Cup Final (a big ‘if’) then everything else has to stop, and wide-screen coverage ought to be set up in every available church in the land. No ifs, no buts, no hand-wringing!
: )
P.S. As an Arsenal supporter, I send seasons greetings to Pete Broadbent, and direct him to the Premier League table. Merry Christmas!
Susannah I think most people watching England in a final would also expect to be consuming prodigious quantities of alcohol at the same time. Heavy drinkers can be awkward to manage if they’re exuberant at a win or melancholic with defeat.
Sounds about right, LOL
I skipped Saturday morning worship so I could watch “The Game”: The annual college American football match between my now-deceased wife’s must-watch The Ohio State University Buckeyes and the Michigan Wolverines.
I figured God would understand, … but the spirit of my wife wouldn’t. I’d rather contend with God!
Generally speaking, God is more tolerant than the missus.
I suspect God also sees the way football can provide ways people at work can share common interest and connection together in discussion of shared experience of a country’s glories on the pitch or (more likely in England’s case) the painful train-crashes and tribulations that have recurred again and again since 1966.
England in the World Cup is a form of collective ritual, and I think societies need ritual.
That the World Cup final falls on the Sunday afternoon before Christmas raises very practical issues for many local churches and their carol services. The CofE ‘Church Support hub’ has produced a helpful range of practical suggestions for churches thinking through how to respond. There has been no ‘own goal’ all. Thoughtful tactics that folk will use, adapt, or not, as they find helpful. But Jeremy Haselock gives this whole topic a negative spin and seems to be grinding some personal axes on the way. Apparently there is, a ‘huge rumpus brewing’ about this. The hub ‘smells of the CofE Communications… Read more »
Meanwhile the Australia Argentine game falls on Sunday Morning here in Sydney – with invites to come to church early and stay on after the game.
With Messi playing for Argentina, I figure you need a prayer meeting before the game.
It was Messi church all right
I think Simon Butler is right about two things. (Not that he is wrong about the rest, just that these are the headlines.) 1. A fudge or partial solution to the SSM issue won’t stop the arguments. The settlement for female ministry is a good example of this and rightly so – it is not an acceptable end point. If the goal is to stop the arguments and move on, a minor accommodation won’t achieve that outcome. 2. A conscience opt-out doesn’t work. Again, the situation for female ministry demonstrates this. Inevitably someone who cannot accept same sex relationships would… Read more »
Seems to me the solution is the more democratic method of choosing bishops used in TEC: That each diocese chooses for itself, not have a bishop imposed upon it by higher authorities.
With respect, I don’t think that TEC practises can be held up as the basis for potential reform of the C of E which seems to be a recurring theme of many of your comments. With all its imperfections the C of E is a national church, (I’m not referring to its legal Established status although, of course, that is a relevant factor). C of E dioceses are not autonomous in the TEC sense. However, they now play a part in the CNC process for choosing their diocesan bishop, and I don’t think it is correct to say that he… Read more »
That works if dioceses are homogeneous and all members have the same view, otherwise you just embed the disagreement at diocesan level.
Agree 100%.
Back when the English episcopacy was stocked by the British Prime Minister, it could at least claim some kinda democratic legitimacy, however tenuous (and appointments had an outside perspective).
Now? Well, look at the result of decades of company men donning the purple, and despair. If bishops refuse to stand for election, why should we even consider them bishops?
Since we can’t fit everyone in to our church who wants to be at Carols by Candlelight, we do a ‘Carols By Torchlight’ in the churchyard beforehand. So those who don’t have a problem with entertainment being played out over the corpses of immigrant construction workers can join us at 6.30pm, and the other half of the population have a 4.30pm option.
How do you do the musical accompaniment in the churchyard David?
we had a flute and an ‘aerophone’ (electric clarinet type thing) with a small amp, and ran an extension lead into the church. Started it for Christmas 2020 when singing was only allowed outside, and it was pretty popular
Interesting and provocative article by Jeremy Haselock. Of course, in excoriating ‘evangelicals’ for abandoning decent Anglican liturgy, he fails to note that the trailblazers who first ignored the Book of Common Prayer were 19th century Anglo-Catholics who ditched it in favour of Roman Catholic liturgy (and, I’m reliably informed by English friends, some still do that).
Excellent point Tim.
Personally, despite an unashamed love of the KJV and 1662, I’m less bothered about whether a congregation’s using it, the Missal, or something a worship leader’s googled than whether the liturgy speaks to the congregation (and indeed, attracts one).
Given what passes for liturgy these days, I can’t blame any congregation for paring it down.
Indeed. And here in Canada, our 1985 Book of Alternative Services uses the word ‘may’ so many times in its rubrics that you can do something very simple and contemporary (with guitars and big screens), or something very elaborate and ritualistic (with incense and traditional choirs), and still fall completely within the bounds of an authorized Anglican service! Personally, I love that. I would never for one moment want to put restrictions on what my Anglo-Catholic friends get up to within the framework of our authorized liturgy, and I’m happy to take advantage of the same freedom for myself.
Canon Haselock makes excellent points about Qatar and its oppressive policies towards non-Muslims, non-males, and non-heterosexuals. But I think the powers-that-be within the CofE who came up with the idea of televising the game in church, along with refreshments, are overthinking the problem. Not to mention, do they understand what a church is for? Moving to Saturday might be an alternative for some churches, but, here’s a crazy thought: Hold the Lessons and Carols as originally and timelessly scheduled, forget about the World Cup, and gladly welcome those who come. Some years ago, rabbis in Denver CO, where I live,… Read more »