Daniel Sandham Church Times Why churches should keep their doors open
“It is less risky than many people assume — and the benefits for mission are significant”
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love
Vivienne Tuffnell Surviving Church On the devastating life-long effects of Spiritual Abuse
Anon ViaMedia.News Clergy Summer Quiz
I think we already know what you think Colin. You deserve a province all to yourself.
Adrian, the Church of England needs to recognise and understand what homophobia, transphobia, the abuse of and prejudice against LGBTQIA+ people are, and take action to ensure these prejudices are eliminated from Anglican teaching and practice – worldwide. I don’t deserve a Province all to myself. Anglican Christians deserve a church free from misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia and all attitudes that denigrate the equality and well-being of ‘other’ people, whatever category they are placed in. This requires a wholesale revision of Christian history, teaching and practice. It is an insanely immodest ambition.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s always interested to read Colin’s blog and who’d happily join him in his province.
There appears to be three groupings in the C of E. 1.Those who disagree with same sex marriage as a matter of faith. 2 Those who disagree with same sex marriage and those who agree but do not think this is a matter of faith, and 3. Those who as I understand it think anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage is being hateful to the LBTQIA+ community. I don’t see how any of these 3 groupings can flourish unless they each have their own province. However I can see the C of E making a change to its definition… Read more »
I think you have missed a group
4. Those who as a matter of faith believe in a universal welcome by the church (and who do not see a Biblical impediment to loving same sex relationships so that they fall within that universal welcome).
I’m glad you added that. I feel that one of the popular misconceptions is a failure to that many people feel like that and that’s a matter of conviction. One of the reasons for this is that a large proportion of church goers no longer live in the dark ages regarding sexual behaviour . They’ve been educated by the lifestyle choices and events which have impacted family members and friends. I’m reminded of one of the episodes of the Sopranos in which Tony chastises his attractive and ‘lively’ teenage daughter after she’s been caught in a less than moral encounter.… Read more »
Thank you, that’s helpful I have recognised the existence of the 4th province below, I was not initially sure whether these good folk were part of the 3rd province, but it now appears they are not hence the need for a fourth province.
Thank you. I’m not so sure that the group Kate was referring to and I was affirming necessarily needs to be translated into a fourth province. We’re all impacted by the world we Inhabit and the various cultures which we embrace quite openly. The wonder of the Church of England is that its membership consists of ordinary people living ordinary lives in a context which is complex and uneasy at best and our witness and mission is diminished and compromised by not grasping that very simple, plain and uncontested fact. I despair of so much of the current debate because… Read more »
Are the CEEC imposing anything here? I thought they were proposing a third province to allow them to move on with an orthodox position with full legal protections whilst others can move in a different direction? I suspect this will end up in a complete split rather than this solution but isn’t there a point where we have to admit we have irreconcilable positions and we begin negotiating a settlement for churches to split with their parishes intact? Why is that an unacceptable solution? It’s effectively what’s happened in Methodism in the U.S. It’s not quite what Anglicans and Presbyterians… Read more »
If it results in a truly separate denomination no longer seen as part of a national church, sure.
But that’s not what CEEC and its supporters are asking for. They are asking for a third province that will retain all the standing and governmental support of the rest of the Church of England. I presume that means a seat in the House of Lords for the archbishop of this new province, a province with rules that would actually violate many long-standing policies of Conservative, Liberal and Labor governments of the past three decades.
I could have sworn you were stoutly in favor of disestablishment.
I am. But since CEEC seems to want all the perks of being in an established church but none of the responsibilities, I thought it made sense to lay out what that means.
That’s because the CEEC represents churches in the Church of England. They equally feel that others are avoiding ‘responsibilities’, i.e., for holding to the teaching of the Church of England. This isn’t TEC, where the actual faith and practice have been changed.
But CEEC seems to be objecting to the process by which the CoE changes its teachings, protesting the results of recent Synod votes.
I believe you are mistaken. The canons of the Church of England have not changed. TEC has a constitution and canons as well, but has recently become the Church of General Convention. Many of us regard that as an irregular and illegal move, but we are no longer in a position to contest what TEC has now become. The CofE is not likely to follow this path. One can object to its legal status, or question it. One thing it prevents is the loose way change was brought about in TEC, eliminating for all practical purposes any traditional element appealing… Read more »
IMO, TEC has always been “the Church of General Convention,” at least in my nearly 40 years of being an Episcopalian. It is “episcopally led and governed by convention” is the phrase I learned. I think of it as the ecclesial analogue to the executive and legislative branches of our government.
Those who want bishops to have more power and authority are, to my mind, like those who argue for an imperial presidency.
I think this is where the very idea of a Constitution went out the window. The founders of the PECUSA as it was known were framers of the US constitution. TEC used to actually have a constitution, to which things like a General Convention (think Southern Baptist Convention) had to comply. TEC’s is not a presbyterian polity (they also had, at founding, things like confessional documents). What has happened in the last decade has made TEC the church of General Convention, a bit like a progressive version of the SB Convention.
Unless I missed something along the way, TEC still has a constitution and, like the secular Constitution, it has been amended to meet the needs of the modern world.
The TEC Constitution and Canons, and the Book of Common Prayer itself, were created and adopted by the General Convention, and are amended and interpreted by that same body. There is no other governance of the whole Episcopal Church than through the C&C adopted by General Convention. I believe the General Synod plays a similar role in the Church of England, as the governing canons have been extensively amended and promulgated by that body, and the Convocations of the two Provinces. (The English situation is obviously more complicated than the American, in terms of varied authorities from the Monarch to… Read more »
“There is no other governance of the whole Episcopal Church than through the C&C adopted by General Convention.” Correct. And if GC wants to amend said C&C they need to do that in accordance with C&C own statements about how that can happen. Matters like Constitutional black letter concerning disciplinary procedures , e.g., vested according to Constitution in diocesan Bishops, were rearranged without any amendement of the Constitution. Given over to a sort of PB become Metropolitan (complete was Crozier to that effect). This is the new TEC. GC is what the C&C once was, according to its own plain… Read more »
I assume you are referring to the matter of the trial of a presbyter or deacon, the trial details of which were formerly assigned to the Convention of the relevant diocese, according to the second ¶ of Article IX. It is true that the revisions of the Disciplinary Canons (Title IV) moved apace in providing consistent guidelines across the whole church to address such matters. The Constitution was amended in 2022 to clarify the authority of General Convention to regulate the courts trying presbyters and deacons, formerly the province of diocesan authority.
Am I right in thinking that the reasons PECUSA/TEC has no archbishop are 1) because originally there was a strong feeling that no state had prominence over any other and so Presiding Bishop was, like Moderator in the CofS, a way of avoiding this. But then later 2) the Presiding Bishop became solely a presiding bishop, and therefore has no diocese of his/her own, unlike even the Pope who is Bishop of Rome first and pope ex officio because of that? So it rather went from one extreme to the other; and somewhat in parallel with President of the USA?
T, the early Episcopal Church had a general (though not universal) distaste for prelacy, and the responsibilities of the PB early on were fairly minor — mostly to “preside” over the House of Bishops. The office moved quickly from an elected role to the ex-officio senior diocesan. By the 1920s, as the church expanded its boundaries and more work was assigned to the PB, the office was separated from a single diocese (and no new “titular” diocese was created). I think this was more a matter of practicality than any continued distaste for prelates.
At the 1982 TEC General Convention, there was a proposal to change the title of the Presiding Bishop to Archbishop. That proposal was unsuccessful although at that time the Presiding Bishop was given the additional title of Primate. Head bishops have historically kept the title of bishop of X. But as a practical matter, that doesn’t make any difference. The bishop of Rome, as I understand it, has little if anything to do with the governing of the diocese of Rome. My understanding is that is also true for the Archbishop of Canterbury — the diocese is actually run by… Read more »
And GC would need to agree to a change like this over more than one Convention so that the Constitution, the governing document of TEC, could be amended in accordance with its own provisions for doing so.
TEC is not the SB Convention.
The difference with the CofE is that the PB of TEC has no diocese whatsoever. The PB used to have some notional role–and that is saying a bit much–with the Convocation of Churches in Europe. Even that has changed.
KJS carried a metropolitan crozier. We are in the age of inventive ‘I’ll do it my way.’
For churches to split with their parishes intact is unacceptable because the parishioners in general will have absolutely no say in the matter.
On a different tack, as family and local historians will know, the notion that there is a doctrine of marriage would be entirely alien to the Evangelicals of the 1650s who insisted that marriage was a purely civil matter, nothing to do with the Church.
Strange to say, there are not many Evangelicals from 1650 around today. Even us lot from 1850 are thin on the ground.
Also, arguably strange, is that people in different ages, apparently starting from similar principles, can reach such widely differing conclusions. Another oddity is that General Synod sits on a Sunday. Parliament does not. As far as I know no city, county, burgh or district council sits on a Sunday. How come it is the Church alone which so disdains the Sabbath Day?
In short, there is no reason to think future generations will share our ideas of what matters.
Likely because, as every parish priest knows, if you want to hold a viable church event you have to hold it during working people’s leisure time. Unless the only kind of people you want to represent the laity of the church are the retired or the independently wealthy.
If parishes left by a majority vote would this potentially work?
Westhill Church in Aberdeen seems a recent example. They left for GAFCON with an 87% majority. The Scottish Episcopal Church permitted them to keep their buildings.
At some point surely accepting the reality that these irreconcilable differences are irreconcilable will be best for all.
If they buy the building at the market rate, yes.
It’s interesting you talk of voting Gareth. I’ve wondered about that kind of thing, too. A friend from another Diocese (Manchester) with whom I was discussing voting, shared with me the figures from their recent Diocesan Synod elections. They are published here: https://www.manchester.anglican.org/news/latest-news/new-diocesan-synod-members-announced.php I was truly shocked by the number of vacancies, and from what I hear from others, they’re representative of a profound feeling of disenfranchisement among a majority of front line clergy and laity over there. I started looking for others to see how typical those figures are. I couldn’t find that many of them – I’m guessing… Read more »
I retired in 2010..but I noticed this too and I suspect it has worsened. Clergy participation at Deanery Synods is very poor. Many parishes are focused on survival and I think feel rather oppressed by diocesan demands. Some clergy chapters have poor attendance too. I think you are right. And of course in multi church benefices very few are prepared to travel to another church when there is nothing at their church. So called Benefice Services rarely gather folk from churches where the service is not being held
I observe much the same. My parish can only fill one of its places on deanery synod for lay reps, and there are quite a few vacancies on our diocesan synod following the recent ‘elections’. Nominations have been re-opened, but I can’t imagine there will be many fresh nominations. Amongst other things, it makes me wonder how any synod at any level can claim to represent the mind of the church when most of the church is so disengaged from synodical processes.
Indeed. And it amazes me how low the “turn out”is at elections to General Synod. Even amongst the clergy( who should know better) it seems to hover in the 60%’s . Surely in a relatively small electorate it ought to be much much higher.
Perry, most of these multi-church benefices should be centralised and little churches closed. Use youtube to stream services if necessary.
The problem is you may still have to maintain the building and have zero income if the church is closed.
It may be possible to sell the church building but unlikely if it is largely Medieval. From memory about half of C of E churches have some some Medieval fabric.
The other option is simply to let the church buildings fall down. I suspect we are not far off that happening.
Why not hand some of the rural ones over to the local community to repurpose into a community hub. Part of the building could perhaps be used as a shop/post office, a library, warm space, a place for coffee etc. Urban ones could be similarly used or resourcing churches could be invited to plant a new congregation in the building. Lots of potential.
The vote would have to be of the entire population of the parish, not just the congregation or those on the electoral roll. Unlike the SEC, the C of E is a national church, and is there for those who don’t attend church equally as for those who do.
It is true that the SEC is not a national church. However, I would dispute vehemently that it is not there for those who don’t attend church equally as for those who do. It is certainly not the case where I minister; nor where countless others known to me do. Some of us, in fact, have been known to ‘be there’ for committed regular members of the national denomination at various points.
That’s great. Do you have a recognised obligation to be so, as we do, or is it entirely voluntary?
Non-parishioners, whether or not members of the congregation, should have no vote, in my opinion. It should be purely for residents.
I don’t know whether Europeans (obviously excluding Irish, Maltese and Cypriots) currently would have a vote. They used to.
Janet, that is absurd and against the New Testament. Non-Christians deciding church policy? Really?
But in this case, church policy is also national policy.
How is it against the New Testament, or what part of it?
The only thing that requires a split is conservative intransigence – in the US and in Scotland no Episcopalian is required to endorse or celebrate the marriage of same-sex couples but for some sharing a church with those who chose to do so was too much and they chose to leave. Conservatives in England of the same opinion seem to be trying to leave and take all the benefits (stipends, pensions, vicarages) of the CofE with them. For non-established, non-national churches like the United Methodists this makes a certain amount of sense. The CofE, however, has geographical parishes and seeks… Read more »
That sounds great at an individual congregational level/clergy conscience level. At the Diocesan level (TEC is an Episcopal Church) not so obvious. The Diocese of Florida could not get consents for electing a Bishop who held the traditional position — even one that works with Bishops coming in from other dioceses for same-sex marriages. The SEC is a very small church of under ten dioceses, so the comparison is also faulty. TEC has more than 100 dioceses and Scotland is the size of South Carolina.
You speak of ‘conservative intransigence’ and yet describe Christians who disagree with you as ‘homophobic’. This attitude is not encouraging.
The sad truth is that the term homophobic is used because it is 100% accurate.
If this is your genuine view then there is no hope for the Anglican communion.
Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.
That is it in a nutshell.
I can work, worship and serve God with people who are homophobic, and have done for years. What I can’t accept is them insisting that their views must be imposed on the whole church and acting as if everyone who disagrees with them is contaminated. Thankfully most people, even people with views I find hard to stomach, are able to remain part of one church. The “intransigence” I am referring to is that of those who insist the whole church must follow their views.
‘The “intransigence” I am referring to is that of those who insist the whole church must follow their views.’
You should listen to yourself. The Alliance is not insisting the whole church follow their view, quite the opposite.
And the ‘intransigence’ that I am referring to is the assumption that your opponents are acting in bad faith and basing their views on homophobia rather than loyalty to scripture.
I think because we haven’t got the time or resources for a slow divorce like this at this time. The third province is not sustainable and the worst of all worlds. If they are not able to remain within and follow the decisions of Synod and the HoB then they should just bite the bullet and create something new with their own resources.
Whilst the Church Commissioners sit on billions of pounds I don’t think the C of E can be said not to have resources. Indeed, the existence of those resources is probably what keeps some groups within the C of E – after all, anyone looking to plant churches will want a slice of that pie.
Can’t see a more liberal C of E surviving for very long if the Episcopal Church of Scotland is anything to go by. So in this sense the C of E needs the Alliance and if the LLF Board has done its job and carried out a proper risk assessment then losing the Alliance will be regarded as an existential threat to the long term future of the C of E. As we have seen the Alliance is not bluffing so the ball is very much in the Archbishop of York’s court. If anyone is to bite the bullet it… Read more »
The Scottish Episcopal Church still exists, last I checked. The “existential threat” to all churches in the west is the ongoing collapse of Christendom, and the shift in culture required to share the faith anew. Even the much-trumpeted evangelical success stories are mostly achieved by attracting existing church goers from a broader area rather than bringing people to faith. If the “Alliance are not going anywhere” then there is no need to bite any bullet, just carry on as Synod has agreed. The “Alliance” can’t force a third province and needs to be realistic about the need to persuade the… Read more »
Are you by any chance observing from afar? I belong to two SEC congregations and have seen no flight from contested liberalism. We are a minority church. Nothing new about that. We have the same problems of disengagement seen in other denominations, some less liberal than us. My own view is that such disengagement will continue unless we all reimagine ourselves along the lines suggested by Halik, but I fear many will find that too difficult.
Except that there are plenty of evangelicals in the C of E who support same-sex marriage and would stay. I can think of several churches which support same sex marriage which are numerically growing – including the one I go to.
Charles, it is impossible to supoort same-sex marriage and remain evangelical. The example of Steve Chalke and his Oasis group shows this. When you find the historic Christian doctrine of marriage needs radical revision, you can hardly stop there. That’s because doctrine is organic and systematic. You can’t change one part without introducing change into the rest. Just check out how Steve Chalke is radically changing.
The biblical witness might suggest a deeper truth – it is impossible to support marriage and remain evangelical (Matt 22:30, 1 Cor 7:8, etc.).
There are thousands of evangelicals who support same sex marriage. And, as has been said often enough, there is no consistent historic doctrine of marriage.
Janet, the liberal church is dying, you know that.
As Janet says, it is empirically observable that there are many evangelicals who do support same sex marriage – in many denominations. What you are doing here is to redefine what evangelical means. Evangelicals who support same sex marriage do not (usually) go on to deny the Creeds. I might point out that some evangelicals who oppose it have in fact fallen into heresy by supporting subordination – including at least one bishop – though I do not think one leads to the other.
Charles, I am not redefining evangelical, my definition is the same as John Stott, Michael Green and Jim Packer gave in their lifetime.
You are in fact the one redefining ‘evangelical’ because you have moved away from what evangelicals have always taught about sex outside of marriage. One can see the faultlines in Durham, between St Nicholas and Christ Church Durham, and those at St John’s who sided with Michael Vasey and those who didn’t.
No, Charles, it was you who redefined things.
Look at how Steve Chalke has ‘evolved’. That’s your trajectory – into more error.
“Can’t see a more liberal C of E surviving for very long…” If a more liberal church dies for doing the right thing then it is being like Jesus. No point in surviving by condoning sin. But actually the big unknown is how the perception of the C of E by the wider population would develop over the coming years if the con evos left. At the moment we are all tarred by the same brush- i.e. as homophobic and irrelevant. Having said that, I don’t actually wish the con evos to leave. Just to have the maturity to believe… Read more »
Are you by any chance confusing the Scottish Episcopal Church with the established Church of Scotland which is in the processs of closing one in three churches? The SEC has always been a tiny church, as Anglican Priest has often reminded us, and like all churches is losing members. However as a regular member of the congregation one of the Scottish cathedrals, which was very full this morning, I can assure you that the liberal SEC is not about to disappear. Indeed, I understand that a healthy number of people are considering ordination which is a good sign of health.
A minor correction: the Kirk is a “national church” but it is not “established”.
If traditionalists on marriage are convinced their view is popular with young people, that conservative churches are growing, and that liberal churches are declining, I genuinely don’t understand why they don’t just stay in the C of E as is, and then take it over when all the liberal churches die out in 20 years time. Genuine question. The anxiety conservatives exhibit suggests they are not really convinced they are winning the argument, either in terms of numbers or growth.
“If traditionalists on marriage are convinced their view is popular with young people, that conservative churches are growing, and that liberal churches are declining, I genuinely don’t understand why they don’t just stay in the C of E as is, and then take it over when all the liberal churches die out in 20 years time.” That sounds exactly like what they intend. Even a ‘third province’ is a province in the CofE. Let the ‘liberal churches’ do their thing, as you say. Perhaps this is a moment when misconceptions can be cleared up. What I quote above sounds exactly… Read more »
Well, maybe. But if that is the vision, then locking yourself into some form of structural provision in the present surely makes it more difficult from a legal and practical perspective to ‘take over’ declining liberal churches in the future, no? More generally, presumably (?) all sides agree that ethical decision-making is not about popularity or success – you need to do the right thing on same-sex marriage (whatever you think that is) irrespective of whether it is popular or will make your church ‘a success’. But the pragmatist in me also wants to recognise that the churches which will… Read more »
You are making it far too instrumental. If you were describing the job of selling cars or fast food your analysis would have some force.
The issue before us in these matters is the Gospel. The purpose of the Gospel is to glorify God Himself.
Our duty is to tell the truth – He will decide the harvest in each generation.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You know your own sociology better than me, though I confess the ‘market analysis’ approach to the Gospel has never made much sense to me. Nevertheless. My read of the coming generations is very different than yours, and I have been around students in this category. Those seriously interested in Christianity have embraced tradition in a way the boomer generation in the US had no clue about. The change of generations often means that the progressivism of an older group looks suspiciously ‘groovy’ — like your dad’s hoola hoop. Well, we shall see. I… Read more »
I think many younger people find the Church’s opposition to homosexuality baffling while a smaller number are attracted esp at university by conservative churches or Christian Unions. But how many stay ten years on? . I believe research on CICU Presidents showed a fair number lapsed. As a DDO in London 1997 to 2009 I had several ordinands who had begun at St Helen’s and other similar churches but many were already ” on the move” and looking at Crockford’s I have been fascinated by their careers.
As a card carrying member of Gen Z, this analysis seems about right to me. My non-Christian friends really don’t get the opposition to same-sex relationships.
And why should they ‘understand’ the continuing (and allowed despite the laws that others are expected to obey), bigotry, homophobia, misogyny that some appear to wish not only for themselves but to force/ expect others to tolerate/ put up with/ shut up about coz they’re wrong/ sinful? I’m a long way from GenZ, but that’s what I respect. people thinking for themselves and loving others. See how these Christians love one another. We don’t expect the laws to be bent to allow us to have slaves; wives to submit to their husbands? That’s ‘out of the ark’. IIUC, even the… Read more »
I don’t disagree with that, and as it happens, I agree with them. I will, however, point out that the majority of the members of Gen Z don’t ‘get’ Christianity—period (or ‘full stop’ as Brits say).
What would be really helpful and interesting is some detailed and rigourous longitudinal analysis of church congregations over a 20 or 30 year period to look at turnover and stickability, ideally comparing different sizes of churches and worship styles/theologies – and preferably not conducted by some practitioner trying to prove a pre-conceived point (the bane of most “empirical” research on church growth). I’m not aware of any data like this in the UK, but others may be better informed. And echoing some comments below, more generally it would be helpful to separate out trying to analyse the causes of church… Read more »
That would certainly be interesting but I imagine it would have to be C of E sponsored. There is a lot of more general sociology of religion published. Callum Brown and others emphasizing the 60s and gender and others pointing to the rise of more “sectarian” churches/ fellowships mirroring the decline of mainstream Nonconformity, black and ethnic Churches etc. But I can’t think of any work done at the more micro level. As a DDO I often wondered why MinDiv didn’t do more research on clergy careers…drop out rates, moves to other denominations etc given the cost of ordination training.
Yes, the liberal churches are pretty close to the edge. I know from folk in Canterbury diocese, where Perry Butler lives, that post-covid in the liberal catholic churches children’s work has largely collapsed and St Stephen’s, which used to have about 110 attendance is now under half that and it can’t pay its parish share. The diocese is thinking of sending cathedral staff to support the place which is now without a rector.
As an aside, I think what’s really killing the Church in England is the collapse of children’s work. I know this is an unoriginal thought, but people just don’t know what Church is, outside of that boring place they were dragged by some aunt when they were 5. People are dying off and their children aren’t growing up to replace them. This really obvious captive audience have not been catechised at all (or, weren’t in like the ’70s and ’80s), and now we have to start from scratch all over again. Me and all my cousins are regular churchgoers specifically… Read more »
Another example – Canada https://livingchurch.org/covenant/the-collapse-of-the-anglican-church-of-canada/?
Or USA
https://episcopalnewsservice.org/2023/09/21/episcopal-churchs-latest-parochial-reports-highlight-denominational-decline-hope-for-future/#:~:text=The%20Episcopal%20Church's%20tally%20of,low%20of%20313%2C000%20in%202021.
There are several problems with David Goodhew’s editorializing view of the Anglican Church of Canada malaise; but he is correct that we are in the midst of a demographic crisis. To better understand this crisis, at least three generations in the making, it is necessary to understand the demographic and cultural shifts in religion in Canada in general. (link). See specifically the view there of Sarah Wilkins-Laflamme, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo. See also latest trends based on the 2021 Canadian census. More anecdotally, and pursuant to Wilkins-La Flamme’s point, my generation of Christians, the… Read more »
In my experience, the situation in the United States is much the same. Among people under the age of 40, the answer to the question of religious denomination is most often “none”.
LGBT Christians ought to be able to walk into any Church of England church and be welcomed. That’s an intrinsic part of being the national, established church. Structural separation entrenches the problem even deeper.
Just to change the subject….where do we find the answers to the Clergy Summer Quiz? I want to see how well I have done.
Coming early next week, Robert!
“A homophobic Church or a Church free from homophobia?” How about a Church filled with love, welcome and with some humility ? How is it “Orthodox” to create a God in our own prejudiced image? Isn’t that actually a bit blasphemous ? What we are supposed to believe is this: A “loving God” creates human beings with the need to express their sexual love for someone of their own gender and then forbids them to physically express that love. Is this a “loving God” ? Really.? One thing we know for certain: God didn’t write one word of the Bible,… Read more »
An interesting response which stands or falls on the key assumption that “A loving God creates human beings with the need to express their sexual love for someone of their own gender.” What if that assumption is not correct?
It’s not an assumption, it’s observed reality.
That individuals express their sexual love for someone of their own gender is observable behaviour but that God created them that way is not.
“That individuals express their sexual love for someone of their own gender is observable behaviour but that God created them that way is not”
Since many LGBTQ persons report feeling this way since a very early age (some as young as five or six), who is it you propose made them so?
Same sex activity is common throughout nature. It is “natural” and observable. Presumably you believe God is the creator of the natural world. (And don’t say we’re superior to animals!)
Observable but not natural as described in Romans 1: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts… Read more »
I’ve always found it odd (or to use the newly popular American word, “weird”) that those who quote Romans 1:24-27 skip so lightly over the first word — “therefore.” One can’t really interpret that passage properly without considering what precedes “therefore.” The preceding verse (verse 23) says “and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.” So is same-sex attraction caused by idol worship? Does this passage have any application to those with same-sex attractions that don’t worship idols? Do you claim that all persons who… Read more »
All of us are guilty of idol worship.
Idolatry is giving that which is due to God to a person or object or idea.
It is the conceit of our age that leads us to look down on those before us who worshipped animal objects and tell ourselves such things are beneath us.
The idolatry of our generation is the worship of Self, to which we are all susceptible.
Spot on, Peter.
Idolatry is putting something or someone in the place of God. Anything you look to in the hope of finding what only Christ can give (joy, peace, meaning, significance, security, identity, salvation, etc.). Idolatry isn’t just a matter of shrines, carved images etc. Heart idolatry exists everywhere. Common idols include money, wealth, sex, relationships, fame, the praise of others, skill, success, appearance etc.
Of course, idolatry can have a metaphorical meaning that expands the concept of idolatry beyond the literal meaning of the worship of graven images. Paul, in fact, uses that expanded, metaphorical meaning elsewhere in his letters.
So Paul clearly understands the difference between the literal meaning (worship of graven images) and the metaphorical meaning.
In Romans 1, however, Paul is using the literal meaning of graven images, not an expanded metaphorical meaning — “and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.”
You may not understand the flow of the argument, how the quintessential ‘Gentile sin’ of idolatry – which means worshipping created things as if they were the immortal God – issues in depraved conduct of all sorts. I recommend you read Douglas Moo’s commentary on Romans for details.
This is a good point, Bob – to many of us, the word ‘idol’ connotates a physical object, be it a pantheistic god or, as in a recent court incident, a local river. Something tangible, anyway.(Cromwell’s reformers didn’t go a bundle on saints’ statues and icons either, but we won’t go there.) Our society, being primarily materialistic, doesn’t see the other things, the unconscious ‘idols’ which you rightly mention. And, of course, we too have our own particular ones – which are even harder to spot. We don’t have ‘idols’, brother, just pet dogmas which we use to justify our… Read more »
Not just Americans btw. Here is a clip from Canadian hip hop artist Buck 65 ( I think that is what the Canadian dollar was worth against the US buck at the time) titled, Wicked and Weird. What a great word, eh! Buck 65 is now a national radio presenter ( see 2nd link). lol, lol!
Wicked and Weird
https://youtu.be/YjxfF7T97z0
Buck 65
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_65
No, it isn’t common throughout nature. That’s an error propagated by people who don’t understand dominance behaviour in some animals. And I have no hesitation at all in saying we are superior to animals. (But if you think you’re not, I can’t help you.)
James, it is common throughout nature. https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/jun/20/animal-homosexual-behaviour-under-reported-by-scientists-survey-shows The article says “Josh Davis, of the Natural History Museum in London and author of A Little Gay Natural History, said: “Around 1,500 species have been observed showing homosexual behaviours, but this is certainly an underestimate because it’s seen in almost every branch of the evolutionary tree – spiders, squids, monkeys. “There’s a growing suggestion it’s normal and natural to almost every species,” he added. “It’s probably more rare to be a purely heterosexual species.” The “A Little Gay Natural History Book” is fascinating, not just about homosexuality but about the whole range… Read more »
Being serious, what would James and Father David think about those species which actually can be hermaphrodites and self reproduce? There are such things – one in the news recently was a manta ray in a zoo aquarium which self impregnated, though I can’t immediately recall any others.
My black labrador has never started a war, joined in a riot or committed murder. If you think humans are superior to her, I can’t help you.
Very true, Father. The more I see of humans, the more I love dogs cats, and other furry creatures. As Father Brown said, there’s nothing I like better than a good dog – just don’t make a god of it.
A lot, of course, depends on how much personal involvement you believe God has with giving life to individual individuals at the point of conception and prenatal development. And I’m quite sure not everyone shares the same views on that!
We Christians are theists, not deists like Voltaire. Every human being without exception is made in the image of God. Deists don’t believe that, Christians do. It’s the foundation of human rights.
True, we all have (or should have) the ability to make moral choices, which I personally think is what being made in God’s image means. I was meaning more the source of physical life itself at conception – a committed pro-life campaigner would have a different view of it perhaps to a Christian GP, and both would believe they were right. From what I’ve read, traditionally Jews believed the Holy Spirit to be involved in the act of conception for life to actually come into being.
Arguably, David, if you extend the ‘loving God created us, but forbids our expressing needs’ to long term single people, he forbids us to express those needs as well – I came across enough statements to that effect in evangelical books which I’ve read in the past, and its impossible to escape the guilt which they create. OK – yes, as straights we apparently have the possibility of ‘receiving’ the ‘gift’ of marriage and conforming to this new orthodoxy – if a sovereign God lets you do so. And if you are taught to believe he controls your circumstances, and,… Read more »
I think that can be largely said of the church 50 years ago, but many in the church have since gone through charismatic renewal, and living life in abundance is strangely attractive.
Sorry if this is pretty blunt – David’s comment, coupled with recent personal events have set some very raw nerves jangling. Actually the experiences I mentioned all occurred in ‘charismatic’ house churches and Nonconformist ones – and well within the last fifty years! Depending on who was their dominant influencer there was a lot of that kind of controlling abuse floating around. To quote a couple of examples – a friend of mine, who is still single at 74 was forming a friendship with a woman from a house fellowship. He had a visit from their enforcers, who told him… Read more »
In 2002, the Synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, authorized the production of a service for blessing of same-sex unions. The Anglican Church in Canada is now in a state of collapse: https://livingchurch.org/covenant/the-collapse-of-the-anglican-church-of-canada/ Jim Packer walked out of that Synod meeting in 2002 and explained his reasons for doing so in an article for Christianity Today in the following words: “The decision (of Synod) taken in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God appointed role as the bastion… Read more »
You have committed the basic error of assuming correlation is causation. It may be true that authorizing same sex marriage causes decline but the evidence is not there that this is causation. Indeed anecdotal evidence suggests many churches which are conservative on this issue contain many younger members who do not agree with the conservative line. This alone should give us pause before we simply assume causation. Bob Jackson’s research of 20 years ago suggested that the big evangelical churches in the C of E are losing people but do not notice. Statistical approaches to mission are notoriously tricky to… Read more »
Post hoc ergo propter hoc – classic trap
Difficult not to notice exponential growth when it happens, and is happening. This is Jesus’ statistical approach to mission but yes, large conservative evangelical churches are also in decline in my experience and need to start fishing on the other side of the boat, but you know conservatives, they will happily keep on fishing all night long and then question why when they are asked to do something different.
Weren’t the last recorded words of the church supposed to be “But we’ve always done it that way?’
And, when the Spirit did come, the churches either rejected the gifting, or simply hunted excitement and experience, making those an end in themselves.
Joke heard in at least two Episcopal parishes in my lifetime:
“How many Episcopalians does it take to change a lightbulb?”
“Ten (the number is often higher)–one to put in the new bulb and nine to lament on how great the old one was.”
Indeed, Pat. I’ve heard it too. There is many a true word spoken in jest…..
When I led a church 10 years ago, I had a steady flow of couples who wanted to be both married and have their children christened who had been turned away by evangelical churches because of their strict policies and what they saw as judgmental legalism. The joy was not just saying yes to them, but to many of them finding a personal faith for themselves and a place of welcome and belonging. If I was still in parish ministry, I would offer an equal prayerful welcome to same sex couples. This is the way to church growth – not… Read more »
In the case of Canada the demographic crisis we are experiencing is not ’caused’ by the fairly recent, and I might add ‘checkboard’, presence of authorizing same sex marriage. The diocese of New Brunswick where there is no availability of same sex marriage in the church is doing no differently than the neighboring diocese of Nova Scotia -Prince Edward Island where there is. Notice this statement by David Goodhew in the article linked above by David Keen: “Canada’s determination to be in the vanguard of progressive theology has been shown conclusively to lead to congregational collapse.” This is a conservative… Read more »
I think a lot of people engaged in the current debates in Anglicanism about same sex attraction and relationships could do with carefully brushing up on the many different logical fallacies it is easy to fall into in debating such complex matters.
And, as Winston Churchill is reputed to have said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Mark Twain attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli but it’s certainly pre-Churchill, though he may of course have quoted it.
I think Mr C did – at least the version I’ve read. But you could equally be correct – it is probably as old, and true as government statistics themselves. First Kings, was it, or Second, when David messed it up?
I always thought it was Mark Twain who coined that, although he attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli. You might be thinking of Churchill’s ‘terminological inexactitude’ expression.
Could it not be attributed to Shakespeare, or some version of the Bible?
Try First Kings, possibly
It’s always tempting to try to find the one reason that has caused decline (or growth). I’ve lived in Canada for longer than Jim Packer, and unlike him I was a parish rector.in several different dioceses. In no particular order, I would point to the following. (1) In our secular culture religion of any kind seems more and more implausible (the reason Islam is growing in Canada is mainly because if immigration, not because it’s making new Muslims). (2) We have a ‘mind your own business, religion is a private matter’ culture which makes any sort of evangelism a tough… Read more »
Tim, thank you! Great comment.
Thanks Tim, apart from the residential schools I think you could say the same about the UK, but then again we have our own safeguarding scandals.
Of all the issues, I think the most important one, and the one that is never discussed, is your point 1. Huge numbers of people simply do not find the stories that we tell about our faith and the Bible to be true or convincing. And that applies to church goers as well as non church goers.
Simon – YES!
I’ll second that affirmation, Colin.
Simon, I agree that Tim’s no 1 could use a lot more discussion across the board. I think Tim’s use of the descriptor ‘implausible’ and your use of the term ‘convincing’ are onto something. My sense is that these kinds of terms point in the direction of something that goes beyond a sort of intellectual assent and to the ‘feel’ of the thing, to an intuitive sense about the ‘story’ as it were. I think what people wrestle with is whether or not they find the Christian story meaningful in their social context. Folks can wrestle with specific aspects of… Read more »
Which stories? The Incarnation? The Resurrection? The miracles of Christ?
I agree, if they are not true, there is no point in being a Christian.
But they are true.
Many young children believe Santa Claus to be “true”. Poetic stories in the NT become ridiculous and unbelievable when translated into prose. That’s when people grow out of them – like Father Christmas coming down a chimney, or Jesus going up on a cloud.
So which of the “stories” do you not believe? The incarnation? The Resurrection? The miracles of Christ? The Ascension? Christ’s death on the Cross?
I believe in ALL of the “stories”. As stories.
A very silly and even offensive comparison. Any biblically literate person knows that the cloud in Scripture denotes the immediate presence of God. Of course, if you don’t believe in the bodily Resurrection of our Lord (do you?), you won’t believe in the Ascension. Read a good commentary on Acts, e,g, the one by Howard Marshall. And read C. S. Lewis on the Ascension.
As Simon Dawson points out below there are different ways of being a Christian. You want everyone to follow your way.
Really? And where in the text is this “biblically literate” individual to find this explication?
James. Perhaps there are different ways of being Christian. For you, belief that these stories are true seems to be a necessary part of your faith, and I am quite happy for you. I have a different approach. I don’t think that many of these stories actually happened in history (but I wasn’t there so I can’t be sure). But these stories are still meaningful to me, in giving me guidance on how to lead my life well, in contributing to my prayer/reflection life, and in building community by discussing the texts with others and sharing use of the texts… Read more »
So do you not believe in the Resurrection?
Bob, do I believe in the resurrection?
Yes – as a narrative with profound spiritual and psychological depths which, can be transformative in human life. As evidenced by the fact that divine death and resurrection narratives are to be found in a wide range of world religions.
As historical truth in the Jesus narrative. Probably not. But I wasn’t there so I can’t be sure.
So who do you say Jesus is/was? Risen Son of God, part of the Trinity, now seated on His throne in Heaven, and who will come again? A moral teacher who is buried somewhere? A nice man who said some interesting things? Or?
You don’t need to be happy for me, Simon. If you don’t think the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Christ, the bodily Resurrection of the Lord and his Ascension into heaven (= the direct presence of God) actually happened in history, then you don’t have the faith of the Apostles or the faith of the Catholic Church. And if they didn’t happen, then they don’t have any meaning; that is just psychological projection, and using currency that you have declared to be counterfeit. That isn’t honest, so it can’t give you ‘guidance on how to live your life… Read more »
James, What I find interesting in your response is your obviously strong need to criticise my way of thinking.
Why can’t we just agree that people are different, and should be allowed to find the way of relating to the Christian scriptures in the way that works best for them.
There are many people who would deny that I am a Christian. That does not worry me, although it make me sad at the intolerance. And it does not stop me going to church.
I’m guessing such stories as Genesis 1 & 2, The Flood, Exodus, Jonah etc etc.
And in the NT, expelling demons from an insane man and sending them into a herd of swine.
What Jesus believed about these stories is what I believe. I very much doubt you know better than Jesus – but if you think you do, you know how to put that belief to the test.
Get yourself crucified and if you are alive after three days, I will fall at your feet in worship. That’s a promise. Over to you.
James, when people speak of generic myths and then fold the NT into them, you have learned all you need to know about the Church of Thinking Anglicans. Are they true? Demons were not expelled. People make these things up. Jesus was crucified because people saw these things as frauds, and whatever the plain sense presentation of the NT might say, there is a Jesus just for you hiding behind this.
I haven’t a clue what this means. The NT describes Jesus casting demons into pigs. No one is folding myths into the NT. They are already there. What things did people see as frauds? What is the plain sense of the NT? I think we in the TA Church should be told.
“No one is folding myths into the NT. They are already there.” Bang on Fr. David H. Please keep up the poignant pushback. One of the things that people tend to over look is how rigorously thoughtful a distinctive ‘liberal’ Anglicanism is/has been–especially in the C o E which is so often trolled here. I’ve linked an article (lengthy) by Professor Paul Badham. No doubt many of the commentators/readers at TA know these things already; but it is helpful to have it in a comprehensive overview. Liberal Anglicanism – Anglicanism.org Here is a bit of a spoiler alert. “Liberal Anglicans… Read more »
Thank you for the very interesting reference.
Thanks for the reference Rod, exactly right. But is it to do with the mood of the times. In politics there is space for an open liberal attitude to social policies, immigration etc when people feel confident and prosperous, but in times of economic stress and conflict then conservative attitudes return. Does the same thing happen in religion. A few decades ago the C of E was a confident church in a confident country and there was space to try new ideas and be liberal, as Colin Coward has described. But things have changed, and many people may feel a… Read more »
And one more thing, thank you so much for the linked article, which I have now read. It has touched me.
It has been a bit of a lonely journey for me in the current church to find an understanding of Christianity which works for me, an understanding I see as post-modern. So it is affirming (but sad) to see that my understanding almost exactly matches mainstream Anglican liberal thought between about 1750 and 1950.
Best wishes.
I intended the Professor Badham piece as a reminder that liberal Anglicanism has a distinctive history which has yielded positive social change. It is also a reminder that liberal scholarship has an honourable ,thoughtful, intelligent pedigree. Although Badham correctly points out the distinctiveness of Anglican liberalism in juxtaposition to the Enlightenment, he notwithstanding shores up the shift in a locus of authority, characteristic of the Enlightenment, toward integrated multidisciplinary learning and away from pure ecclesiastical authoritarianism. Also, his is an effective counter point to the caricature of liberals as flakey throw backs to the 1960s, for example. Yes, churches as… Read more »
Here is where the difference lies, then. Many of us do not see any “plain sense” in the NT (or any other part of the Bible, for that matter). We see metaphor, we see other forms of poetic use; like all religious texts, it uses these things to describe and impart deeper truths than “plain sense” can accomplish.
As a 21st Century, scientifically educated Christian, I can read the Gospel for those deeper truths and not fall into the trap of “literal meaning”.
Just to be clear. You believe that there was an actual Flood that covered the whole world; that the world is flat, covered with a dome (that’s what Genesis describes); that Jonah was actually eaten by a whale? Because it seems to me that this is part of the problem. Some churches insist on teaching these stories to children as if they actually happened. Then when children start to learn more about the world, they see that this can’t be so and so they inevitably think that ALL of Christianity is a made up story. The same thing applies to… Read more »
False analogies, David. The proto-history of Genesis 1-11 is clearly a special kind of literature, rather different in style and content from the rest of Torah. So I read it as true but not in a simple historical way. To frame the question this way: Were there a historical Adam and Eve and did they disobey God somehow? Yes, I think there was, but when and how this happened, I don’t know. Was there a local flood in Mesopotamia that devastated that area out of which the ancestors of Israel were rescued? Yes, I think there was, and that story… Read more »
So these stories are not ‘history’ (I presume you include Jonah in this). So why make such an exception here and not for, say, Matthew 1&2? Is it not acceptable to be able to treat this as not ‘history’?
Hang on, David. Doesn’t the Hebrew say Jonah was swallowed by a ‘great fish’, rather than a whale. (although I read that that did actually happen once, and the poor fellow survived.)
Actually, it isn’t just children some churches teach as though they actually happened. It gets very difficult at times, knowing who and what are real events and what aren’t.
These similar myths appear widely in many ancient civilisations.
So?
So they possibly point to a collective folk memory of an actual event. From things I’ve seen and read the ‘Flood narratives’ could possibly be the inundations following the end of the last great Ice Age, which had a very widespread impact. Some people suggest it formed the Black Sea, the Bosporus and North Sea, for example, and there is some archaeological/ geological evidence to support this. Again, discoveries regarding the origins of homo sapiens, ‘Lucy’ and Olduvai Gorge can be taken as ‘proving’ one original man and woman – we are all supposed to have a common genetic thread… Read more »
“But they are true.” How do you know that, James?
I agree, Simon, though I probably draw a different conclusion from that than you do. I don’t have a philosophical objection to miracles (I think I’m in almost complete agreement with C.S. Lewis’ book of the same name), and I don’t feel inclined to water down the miraculous element in the biblical story. Yes, i know modern (and post-modern) people have difficulty with it, but they also appear to have difficulty with the watered-down version—given that churches that have discarded the miraculous stories don’t seem to be any more effective at attracting modern or post-modern people. I agree with C.S.… Read more »
Tim, by practising Christianity I engage with a group of people, in person and on-line, who use scripture and liturgy and debate to explore how to lead good and meaningful lives, and to be better at being more compassionate and neighbourly, as Jesus taught. By practising Christianity I engage with texts and traditions that help me explore the mystical and transcendent, which is an important part of my make-up. It is using scriptures to lead a “good” life in this world, and being agnostic about what happens in the next. But this world can still contain mystery and wonder. At… Read more »
Tim, I’m pretty much in agreement with you – and as an evangelical I think the Incarnation and the Atonement belong at ‘the centre’ of our faith – although our faith isn’t a circle or a square (which have a single centrepoint, but more like a glob and on a globe, any surface point is the centre: the Christian faith is an organic and systemic whole – which is why changing one doctrine ineluctably changes everything else, whether you want to or not and eventually end up with a different religion.
Gresham Machen understood this point over 100 years ago.
That’s beautifully put, Simon. And if it isn’t true, we’re wasting our time, as the postman told Will Hay’s Mr Porter. I think, when I read CSL’s ‘Miracles’, I concluded he was really dealing with conversion and coming to faith – which is of course the most important and everyday miracle we can expect to see. Someone once asked me to define my faith – I’ve said it on here before now – very simply, I’m a sinner. God the Father loves me, Jesus, God the son saves me and God the Holy Spirit keeps me, and you can’t get… Read more »
Good points, Tim, most of which translate more or less into the English context. Although I feel the point on formal liturgical worship requiring “a lot of learning for intelligent participation” doesn’t get to the root of its problem. Formal worship often ‘worked’ by immersing the newcomer in the liturgy until it began to rub off on them; intelligent participation came later. In other words, it was caught rather than taught; through the Church to Christ, rather than through Christ to the Church. This was how I came to faith as a bored youngster finding nothing better to do on… Read more »
I agree. I was a choir boy at 8. I took to liturgical worship like a duck to water. But where are choirs now ..or other things like serving teams or uniformed organizations attached to the parish church. Or the well attended evensong for the believing but sacramental . These ways in have largely gone. And the growth of kids doing Sunday sport has had an enormous impact
“…the growth of kids doing Sunday sport has had an enormous impact….”
Maybe the solution is to have churches sponsor the sports? In my youth, the RC had something called “CYO” (Catholic Youth Organization), and each parish had a baseball team, a basketball team, a football team, a cheering squad, etc.The CYO also sponsored dances for teens.
Where is the Anglican/Episcopalian equivalent?
In Britain quite a number of modern Premier League football clubs owe their origins to Victorian churches who ran them as a healthy and valid outlet for youthful energy. You might be surprised at some of the big name teams which began that way. The world has moved on and, unfortunately, the church has failed to move with it. But that means sacrificing some very sacred traditions and schedules, becoming more flexible in our thinking and, at the same time remaining true to God. “Life/work balance” becomes a “Faith/life balance” within a very different society to the ones our traditional… Read more »
Meant Evensong for the believing but NOT sacramental ( mainly). Many town churches are simply a Parish Communion at 10 or 11 now. I agree Liturgical religion is often caught not taught and I suspect personality has a lot to do with it. Charismatic churches thrive by gathering those who want ( need?) high octane religion. Confronted by that as an adolescent I would have run a mile! Perhaps ordinands should read William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience.
How much of the decline in eucharistic parishes is down to our conservatism in admitting children to Communion on the basis of their baptism? Have parishes and cathedrals in which this is the practice been more successful in keeping their young people?
Perry, what has happened in Canterbury where I am told children’s work in liberal catholic places like St Stephen’s has collapsed? Did covid kill off children’s work?
The problem is deeper: the failure of Anglican schools to impart Christian faith. In my experience, Catholic schools are much less apologetic, more evidently faith-centred.
You’re in Canterbury, Perry. Is it true as I hear that children’s work has largely collapsed in liberal catholic churches there post-covid?
That parishes there can’t pay their parish share?
There is nothing new under the sun: “…the numerous “youth” organisations which flourish today offer attractions which compete seriously with any but the most highly favoured choirs. Perhaps, however, the most potent factor of all is the general decline of discipline, and the desire for freedom and amusement on Sundays, rather than regular attendance at church.” (Marmaduke P Conway, writing 75 years ago)
Yes, if you can reach children when they are young, that can work (although a whole host of people who were formed in the same way you were, have subsequently lost faith and left).
But how you reach secular adult people and draw them into a church based on an elaborate liturgy—that’s a more difficult issue. A comparatively small number of people are reached by it. The majority don’t appear to find it helpful.
Liturgy need not be elaborate. But its practitioners do need to know the difference between mystery and mystification, with confidence in those simple yet strong rituals which speak for themselves.
Of course this won’t reverse the decline (although never gainsay the workings of the Holy Spirit), but it might stem the flow; although, in my experience, mainly by attracting people from other traditions.
Tim Chesterton writes: “Has our support for SSM cost us members? No doubt it has, and many of my friends left and joined ANiC and ACNA plants. But on the other hand, I know people who left us because we discriminated against LGBTQI+ people too, so it works both ways.”
To the best of my knowledge (and people don’t always tell you why they’re leaving), St. Margaret’s, Edmonton (my last parish before i retired, where i was the rector for nearly 24 years) lost one family over the years who thought the ACC was too liberal on the SSM issue, and three families who thought the ACC wasn’t welcoming enough.
I don’t know the answers to your questions about Canadian Muslims.
Re “making Canucks” , see at about 1:36. “I didn’t know that Canadians were as clever as that” lol
https://youtu.be/RoCslBHMDfM
I have come to believe that saying that type of church X or type Y is better or worse at mission is hubris. I think most mission is done by the Spirit, the Lord Himself, or Jesus calling people. Of course, not everyone heeds the call. To use the sort of analogy Jesus used, our job is to till the ground to make it as fertile as possible and to keep weeds under control so that when the Lord chooses to plant a seed it can germinate and grow vigorously. We are labourers in the fields of the Lord. If… Read more »
“Most mission is done by the Spirit, the Lord Himself” is a statement of belief rather than empirical fact. Obviously, Jesus isn’t very effective at doing mission if only noisy traditions attract a few more people. Tilling the ground to make it more fertile isn’t going to translate into conversions if what is preached in churches is simplistic nonsense. People can see through evangelical jingoism and see that it’s both unbelievable and quite funny. Today’s CofE has lost a sense of the numinous in favour of a superficial product that is both trite and irrelevant.
Good piece in Church Times today about Resource Churches which are doing a brilliant job of communicating the gospel whilst also engaged in social action, and shows that Bible based exponential growth is possible.
Which bit of “but only God gives the growth” is not very effective? After all “salvation” is by grace not by
Kate’s offering sounds perfectly reasonable…
Seeing through “evangelical jingosm” is a statement of belief rather than empirical fact…. 🙂
God doesn’t “give the growth”. Religion is in terminal decline in the UK and much of the secular West.
I’ve seen plenty of people “come to a lively faith”… even liberal Catholic CofE priests… 🙂 As per the scripture, that’s God growing his Church.
Religion may be in decline but religion isn’t the same as the Church of God… which can’t decline numerically since his sheep are safe in the Father’s hands and ” no one can snatch them away”.
So I’m happy to face death (even if I may tremble in its dishevelling face ) because, ultimately, it’s naught but a vanquished tryrant.
When membership of the church shows a steady decline, how does that show it “can’t decline”? Anecdotally some people may come to a “lively faith”. The majority don’t. God isn’t very good at growing His Church when the majority of English people don’t believe in Him. You may be happy to face death. Please remember many dying people who endure insufferable pain and distress which makes them far from happy.
After nearly 50 years ordained I’m quite aware. Thank you. Your implication of insensitivity is unnecessary.
I also aware of the Gospel which can bring hope and peace in the face of death.
You seem to.be unaware that the church exists beyond the boundaries of time (and beyond denominations) … Its size can’t go backwards unless God fails his people. #Death has lost its sting #
The CofE might not last though…
I’ve said before, Ian – if the CofE collapsed next Monday morning, God would still have a church in England. The numbers of Christians in any one time and place may wax and wane – but the communion of saints transcends both time and space, in ways beyond our understanding. That can only remain a divine mystery
Most Danish teenagers are confirmed following a course of instruction. Most Danish babies are baptised.
God doesn’t necessarily play the numbers game – the primary growth which he gives is spiritually, in the life of individual believers, surely? Butts on pews may be a visible form of growth – which we could well do with, yes, but it isn’t everything. Are we seeing the appearance of the ‘precious remnant’ of believers, perhaps? I don’t know.
And unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labour in vain. No one can come to me unless the Father draw him. and “One must water, one must weed, one must sow the precious seed….”
The majority of Council members of CEEC – and Church of England orthodox leaders – were adolescents in the 1970s. Many of them were younger or not even born.
They are neither responsible for nor contaminated by the wickedness of John Smyth.
Some of those leaders were his victims.
Smyth flourished because there was plenty of sea in which he could swim (to misquote Mao). In other words, although he may have been extreme, he was far from operating in a hostile religious environment, and the ‘one bad apple’ argument does not hold up.
Totally irrelevant to your comment, Francis, but I’m just about back to normal after a really lousy assault of depression. Having been unable to make much sense of things for the last eight days and simply going through life’s motions, it is a real joy to come here and catch up with the threads. Unless you’ve been there, its all but impossible to explain the emotional value and relief which sharing with you folks gives me. Thank you to Simon the invigilator and everyone else who is helping keep me healthy.
God bless