Before the pandemic, C of E attendance was falling at about 3% per year. If the article about growth in attendance in resource churches is correct, then decline in other churches must be taking place at a greater rate than this. I would like to see a detailed breakdown of the attendance numbers by tradition.
Tradition doesn’t tell the whole story. Geography and demographic may be more important. For instance, do churches grow when the vicar has anything between 5 and 12 to look after? Or when the population is highly mobile, and people don’t stick around for long? When services are frequently disrupted by hooligans, or worshippers’ cars are vandalised?
Exactly. From my pew in a deeply rural church – benefice of 5, we have 3 services a month (2 lay led) the single most sensible thing the CofE could do is get an ordained priest into as many parishes as possible*. *Then* think about other things they might want to spend money on.
*and if that means locally ordained ministers or whatever as part of the mix then so be it.
I am puzzled here. Do you mean SHB have helpfully introduced celebrants of the eucharist who are not ordained? Is that something you would approve of? Or have I got it completely the wrong way round.
Best answer I could find :’The balance between strands of churchmanship is not static: in 2013, 40% of Church of England worshippers attended evangelical churches (compared with 26% in 1989), and 83% of very large congregations were evangelical. ’
Most resource churches are evangelical and growing so best guess 45% evangelical in 2024 with around 6% decline each year in other traditions.
Just in the FWIW category, here one sees the enormous difference between the CofE and TEC. Both bodies may reside within a rubric called ‘anglican’ but TEC is a very different church. ‘Evangelical’ in the US is entirely outside TEC, with some very rare exceptions.
You are right. The evangelicals and fundamentalists here in the US are largely in other denominations and are not Episcopalians. In general they also have different affiliations in national politics. In some cases, they believe in the “prosperity gospel.” We in TEC are almost certainly never going to accept lay presidency in even the smallest, most remote church, much less one in the center of a large city.
In Canada there had long been an Evangelical tradition based on things like Wycliffe College or the Church Army and major cities usually had one or more very consciously “low church.” But this was usually much more about BCP Churchmanship. However, the Charismatic Movement gained ground in the 70s and 80s, and theological conflict and Liturgical change created a different dynamic, with some “low” churches taking a more conservative, Charismatic path. Old fashioned “low church” Anglicanism became less common. The Book of Alternative Services did not provide for a non-Eucharistic Sunday liturgy. Things like a weekly Sunday Eucharist informed by… Read more »
In the US, “evangelical” generally translates as “fundamentalist” with a strong insistence on the inerrancy of Scripture. These are the folks who object to the inclusion of evolution in high school biology courses, who insist that geology courses ignore the scientific evidence for the age of the earth measuring in billions of years, etc.
So sad, really. Have you ever read Christianity Today, the major Evangelical weekly? No, fundamentalism is something like a shibboleth that liberal Episcopalians, cosseted in their tiny domain, have no real contact with. And so confuse with evangelicalism the early 19th century ‘fundamentals’ movement that places like Dallas Seminary have for 50 years at least moved on from. It actually pains me to hear these kinds of, truly out of touch with basic reality, slogans. I am neither a ‘fundamentalist’ nor an ‘evangelical.’ It shows you how far removed TEC is from the places like the CofE where ‘evangelicai’ is… Read more »
Jimmy Carter, Philip Yancey. Francis Collins. Carmen Joy Imes. Roberta Hestenes. Ronald J. Sider. Eugene Peterson. Tony Campolo. Shane Claiborne. Richard Hays. Beth Allison Barr. Kristen Kobes Du Mez. Stanley Grenz. And I didn’t even have to try very hard to come up with this list. Also please note that when the American popular media uses the word ‘fundamentalist’ to describe religious terrorists, it’s really, really offensive to use the same word for peaceful, law-abiding, compassionate Christians like the people who started World Vision and Habitat for Humanity. ‘Fundamentalist; is now one of the media’s favourite f-words. That you want… Read more »
When one examines the opposition to same sex marriage what one finds is a belief that binary heteronormativity is ‘biblical’ and ‘revealed’, a dismissal of empirical evidence with regard to human sexuality, the promotion of marriage as a ‘fundamental doctrine’ which the church cannot change, etc. etc. Checks all all the boxes of classic fundamentalism. So yes, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
Tim, Ambivalence is the best way I can describe my view of C.S. Lewis. We made Narnia available to all our children when they were young. My first introduction to Lewis was via the Screwtape Letters in my first year of university. It was a class in Moral Theology. The prof was an Irish Dominican who had done his doctoral thesis on Lewis at the Angelicum. The presentation fitted in very nicely with the Catholic notion of a ‘revealed morality’ which was essentially very conservative–and which I have long since abandoned as such. I went onto to read more of… Read more »
In “classical” Anglicanism, “Evangelical” does not mean “fundamentalist.” It means more or less “low church” or Protestant. In England today it can mean a rather Protestant style of worship, often with a charismatic edge. But no Anglican churches are officially “fundamentalist”, although some clergy or laity may be. Fundamentalism in America usually means Biblical literalism, but that has not been a mainstream Anglican tradition since the 19th Century, although there are places where fundamentalism would not be eschewed. Anglicans, like many mainline denominations and Roman Catholics, accept Biblical criticism and scholarship. In practice, though, some have not really gotten that… Read more »
‘These are the folks who object to the inclusion of evolution in high school biology courses, who insist that geology courses ignore the scientific evidence for the age of the earth measuring in billions of years, etc.’
Have you even read Francis Collins’ ‘The Language of God’? This is the guy who led the human genome project, a brilliant scientist, founder of BioLogos, and a convinced evangelical. More scientists in the same ilk can be found on their speakers’ bureau page.
That is a good point Tim. Like you I know scientists who are committed evangelicals, devout Catholics, observant Jews, devout Buddhists, and of course agnostics or atheists etc. One of the cosmologists who worked with Stephen Hawking for a time was an evangelical Christian if I recall. I know evangelicals here who have no issue with same sex marriage. However, when it comes to the same sex marriage issue, in many cases the arguments put forward by opponents really do have a striking similarity to classical fundamentalism. It is a kind religio-political evolution if you will pardon the pun. It… Read more »
When people analyse trends in churches there seems to me to be a lot of confirmation bias. Resource churches are generally well-resourced churches in centres of population. A comparison with cathedrals might be interesting (perhaps the original “resource church” model?) Many cathedrals are, of course, in centres where population has shifted. The assumption that one factor is dominant in growth is not well tested. There is also some largely forgotten reflection on faith growth in individuals – what is the faith-life-cycle of a person who worships at a resource church at some point in their life? What kinds of questions… Read more »
Yes. Evangelical churches in general are usually in population centres, often suburban or city centre, with congregations well enough off to provide extra resources like admin, youth leaders, paid musicians, and pastoral workers. Just look at the staff list of many big evo churches. In small towns and villages, a smaller group of people are usually struggling to maintain a building and pay the parish share, never mind any extras. And there is only a small surrounding population to increase the size of the congregation.
Plant near us ticks boxes for being in town & big building, but has very poor parking availability, so despite all the investment it has not taken off. They did a full immersion baptism session in the sea recently, only a few people, & regarded as rather brave given the well-known high level of sewage discharge locally by good old southern water
My own observation is that there are many evangelical churches not in population centres. The large well noticed evangelical churches are in population centres; but there are also normally 3 or 4 other Anglican buildings in the same population centre – which aren’t full. In my nearest town there are 7 large Church of England buildings. Six are pretty empty or closed on a Sunday, one (not the grandest) has to have 4 services every Sunday to accommodate people. Its tradition is evangelical. I understand that appointing extra clergy there is opposed by the diocese, despite the obvious need. My… Read more »
Ours is the least affluent village in our area with the cheapest housing stock.
The other villages are financially better off and have some wealthy individuals in the churches, but the churches are small and shrinking. Those wealthy individuals seem to have a lot of influence with our archdeacon who appears to share their theology and distaste for evangelicals.
The town has some very prosperous parts and some areas that are really not prosperous at all. The churches in the town run a foodbank which is both well-supported and well-used. It is a help to many in our village.
I’m surprised too. Here in the South West multi church benefices are the rural norm. Also – given the preponderance of Evangelical curates and dearth of Catholic ones – if you are a parish in a central to Catholic tradition, then vestments are often left to gather mould in sacristy cupboards, sometimes along with much of the tradition.
Country congregations feel the loss, but are typically reluctant to complain; as one lady said to me: “here in the sticks we’re grateful to have a priest at all”.
And, Perry, I think that what has replaced it in many Prayer Book Catholic parishes is not so much Evangelical worship complete with charismatic choruses (PBC parishes will accept only so much) but amorphous middle-of-the-road worship unmoored in a tradition. Does this matter? I don’t know. But I do wonder if it wins many for Christ.
.Congregation sizes need to be seen in context. There is a concentration of churches in rural areas. Bath and Wells and Norwich dioceses each have more churches than London Diocese, which has well over four times the population. Many of these churches do not have services every sunday as one priest serves several churches.
Richard Grand
13 days ago
Re Giles Fraser “Why can’t the Church say church?” I have noted a tendency lately to avoid using any traditional “church” language because it is considered old-fashioned, hard to understand, or off-putting. The same applies to any specific doctrines. The Creeds are not used, or something else is substituted, usually something that avoids the Incarnation, Cross, or Resurrection. The thinking seems to be that “attracting” people with little or no faith background is easier when you tell them they don’t need to actually believe very much. I worry that it’s a projection from the clergy. Why would this work? If… Read more »
I agree. There is a parish church near me that refuses to say the creeds because “they constrain faith”. They also have replaced “this is the word of the Lord “ with “where is God’s word for today”. Their clergy prefer mystery to certainty.
I agree too. For what it is worth, I do the rounds of churches and have done for some years. The churches I least expect to include any form of creed in their worship or the liturgical refrain for scripture readings are within the evangelicals tradition actually.
Yes, my experience across several northern dioceses is that evangelical parishes very often only have one Bible reading, which is short and chosen by the vicar even during the two major seasonal blocks in the calendar. They sometimes also leave out structured intercessions and the Lord’s Prayer as well as the creed. It’s a very long way from the strong Prayer Book tradition which I first encountered in evangelical churches in the 1970s.
This would be a strong cultural difference from the few remaining evangelicals in the Anglican Church of Canada; to the best of my knowledge, most of them still seem to use the prescribed liturgies – if often in a more laid-back form – and follow the lectionary.
To repeat myself, Wycliffe is BCP and Alternative Rite at every morning worship, and Wed evening corporate HC. Chanted psalms. I think evangelical anglican, where it exists outside of the CofE, exists in the context of generic evangelicalism. In Wycliffe’s case, this means showing our non anglican students what Anglican worship is. Many will in time become Anglican.
It is ironic that by the time Common Worship appeared Commonality was disappearing. Some evangelical parishes abandoned lectionary, much of the calendar and sat light to much liturgy even significantly abbreviating the eucharistic prayer as well as abandoning robes.And traditional Catholic parishes moved on to the new Roman Rite often abandoning westward celebration.I don’t imagine any other Anglican Province has this level of diversity and loss of family likeness.
The best of Common Worship (e.g. the Long Preface for Ordinary Time) becomes richer and more resonant through use; liturgy to grow into, not out of. However, in a culture that prizes novelty, the temptation is do it differently every time; aided by CW’s surfeit of alternatives. We have become like kids let loose in a liturgical sweet shop, with little confidence in allowing the Eucharist to just get on and do its work. No wonder Anglican memory is becoming Anglican amnesia.
My church is unashamedly evangelistic in outlook, and regularly uses a variant of the creed in our worship; usually in modern language and in a simple form but affirming our beliefs none the less. The bidding prayer, confession and structured intercessory prayers follow similar lines, and are very much an important part of our worship, although they aren’t formally given such titles. What matters is that they’re used, and that the central core of our faith is affirmed each week.
No, it isn’t. At both the Eucharist and at a Service of the Word the Creed is compulsory on Sundays and Principal Holy Days. At other times it may be omitted. Another authorized affirmation of faith may be used, but this should not be the norm at the Eucharist.
No indeed, but very few places actually use the BCP – even if they use the books! Much more likely they are using CW Order Two in Traditional Language. And that has essentially the same rubric as CW Order One: “The Creed is used on every Sunday and Holy Day and may be used on other days also.” In other words, it is optional on ordinary weekdays.
I worship at St Mary’s Cathedral, Palmerston Place, Edinburgh and the creed is always said at the Eucharist on Sundays. However, I would not want to generalise about the usage across the SEC on the basis of this example.
According to the Liturgy published on the SEC website, revised in 2022, the Creed ‘may be included or omitted according to the season or the circumstances’.
I feel Richard Grand is right to be concerned that dumbing down the Creed is ‘a projection from the clergy’. He is supported by research by the Baptism Project which revealed that this is more a symptom of clerical anxiety than it is an issue for families – even (especially?) unchurched families. However, while dumbing down the Creed may betoken a loss of clerical confidence, it’s a stretch to go from that to condemning the same clergy for preferring mystery to certainty. Is there no place in the Church of Bob for a faith that is enquiring, at times hesitant,… Read more »
Certainly faith should be enquiring as we seek to know Christ and to know Him more. Certainly doubts are normal as we seek to become mature in Christ. I was speaking from experience when I referred to a local parish church in which the creeds are not said and the clergy do prefer mystery to the certainty found in the bible.
I feel we’re not on the same page here. You appear to find certainty in the Bible; I find that ‘the plain meaning of Scripture’ (to borrow a phrase from the conservative Evangelical world) is frequently elusive, often mysterious, and seldom obvious at first blush.
That’s why we have preaching. To make some attempt at explanation or applying it to context. At least that’s what I thought. The whole thing was blown sky high for me when a curate I had managed ton preach a Mothering Sunday sermon without reference to Jesus (or his mother). The curate would call himself an Evangelical and (as I found out later) thought I was not quite the ticket. When questioned about it he couldn’t understand what the problem was. Strange.
Some things, usually of a personal nature, are pretty obvious – thou shalt not steal, covet or commit adultery, undoubtedly. The trouble comes with all the rest – the different bits which different groups choose to emphasise on matters of church organisation and expectations of God for example. My ‘plain meaning’ is likely to be different from yours, inevitably – and according to which translations we’re using. As a simple layman I find a lot of the hair splitting over the meanings of words etc confusing; lacking knowledge of Greek or Hebrew means I have to put a lot of… Read more »
I used to be annoyed with God for not making the Bible clearer. When you look at an individual verse or short passage it might seem clear – but then you can usually find another text that says something different. E.g. Romans says we are saved by faith alone, but Mat 25 says it’s what we do for others that determines whether we are saved. Then there are vast chunks open to interpretation – poetry, parable, narrative. Why couldn’t God have just laid out a list of rules and required beliefs, and skipped the rest? Then we could have been… Read more »
Thank you, Janet, for putting this better than I could have done. The Bible lives in the Church and its reception there. It is not an instruction manual; it is about our hearts and God’s heart.
How would God have made the Bible clearer? Perhaps an editor before it was sent to the publisher? I don’t understand your question. If someone had written the rules on God’s behalf, would we accept them? And surely this would do away with a need for the Incarnation if we knew all the rules someone had already written.
It wasn’t a question, but a description of the frustration I used to feel because I couldn’t find in the Bible the certainty I craved. Having been brought up conservative evangelical, that was where I’d been taught to look for certainty – or security, if you prefer that word.
I still have an enormous respect for the Bible, but I think the only place we can look for certainty, or security, is in the loving heart of God.
I’m a priest of 50 years. I memorized the Ten Commandments for Confirmation at age twelve. But the fact is that they are not, strictly speaking, “Christian.” At best they are sub-Christian or helpful to understand the context of the New Testament. In the NT, some say to Jesus, “I have kept the commandments,” presumably the Law, and Jesus gives another measure of faith. Or some say they are faithful to commandments, but their attitude is seen as hypocrisy in other things. There is nothing bad about them, but the Ten Commandments are never touted by Jesus or other NT… Read more »
Not irrelevant, although their is a tendency in the Evangelical world to put the 10 Commandments before the Cross. Ironic given the absolute centrality of the Cross in Evangelical thought.
Hence the movement in the US among far-right Christians to require things like posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms….leading those of us with more biblical knowledge than others to ask, “which version”?
I have often wondered why these “Christians” elevate the Decalogue above the Beatitudes or what Jesus called the two “Great Commandments”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone saying the Ten Commandments were otiose.
I have certainly never heard of evangelicals moving the cross to the side in favor of the decalogue.
I guess it is time for a break from TA. A respite is good for the soul. And I am in France for 3.5 weeks. The home of enormous crucifixes dotting the landscape. a plus tard.
One CofE church I attend usually has no cross, and when it does it is to one side, never central. Sometimes near the table, sometimes near the steps. The table at the front holds an open Bible (which this church resolutely spells ‘bible’ despite the efforts of the previous parish administrator and others) and normally flowers. Behind the table the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed are written on wooden boards.
Of course. But the 10 Commandments, while very helpful, are hardly exhaustive. And the rest of Leviticus, which filled in the details for ancient Hebrews, was a bit hard to implement in 20th century Britain, and didn’t cover a lot of scenarios like how much I could conscientiously spend on myself, and what kind of career to go for – let alone how assertive I should be with a difficult flatmate. I was looking for certainty and there were so many questions.
There is no doubt friendship and belonging is are essential parts of what people are seeking when they come into church but it is ultimately the realisation that there is total forgiveness in Jesus, the hope of the resurrection and the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives that will anchor people into life long faith. So that all needs to be heard at some stage during someones church experience.
Totally agree Simon. I can get friendship and belonging in any club, walking group etc. I can get social action as a volunteer. I get forgiveness of sins only through Christ.
‘If we tell people we don’t consider faith important and/or that it doesn’t matter if we believe much of anything, why would people bother coming at all?’
EXACTLY. I can not believe in anything in particular much more comfortably from my living room sofa in my dressing gown on Sunday morning.
“God’s New Thing” was a favourite catchphrase in the early days of the renewal movement, but I’ve not heard it used for a good many years. Nor, as yet, have I come across it locally, so I can’t comment on this ‘rebranding exercise.’ Such ‘rebranding’ seems to occur frequently though when a publication or other organisation has lost its sense of purpose or ‘market’ – ‘Christian Woman’ became ‘Woman Alive’ for example, and ‘Buzz’ turned into ’21CC’, without much success and doubtless you can think of others. As an ‘insider’ I can recognise the reference – there’s a scripture somewhere… Read more »
Nicely put, sir. Change is not always for the better – change for the sake of change alone can be a downright nuisance, nor does ‘new’ always mean ‘better’.
It is total projection by people who think they know what the ‘unchurched’ want. I’ve heard all the same arguments against choirs and organs as well.
It seems we have far too many people making decisions who think that church should be coffee and a comfy chat.
The reality is that we need to rebuild connection between community and our church and that has nothing to do with our forms of worship. People aren’t put off by chorus, organs, creeds and liturgy they simply don’t think about our church at all.
A not so humble parishioner
12 days ago
The CofE is just following a well worn path of corporate failure. When in trouble looking to the exciting and new to get us out of trouble at the neglect of business as usual. It doesn’t work, either the organisation fails or it changes beyond recognition into something that is no longer recognisable as the organisation that once was alienating many and being susceptible to unscrupulous leadership.
As has been said by others, stop trying to replace churches and sow division in our parishes and support parish ministry.
A not so humble parishioner
12 days ago
I suppose I have a negative view of resource churches as a result of how they impacted the parish I worship in. Several years ago a resource church was set up in our parish. There was an active campaign to woo members of our congregation to this “new expression” and a number of our congregation left to join this church while we were in vacancy (I.e. in a vulnerable position). This caused quite a lot of pain and mistrust as it was clear that the way the new church was going about its business was to focus on damaging existing… Read more »
Last edited 12 days ago by A not so humble parishioner
You know parish share is optional, right? You don’t need to pay it. The only thing your diocese can do is take away your vicar. If they’ve already done that, then keep the money and tell them that you’ll give them a lump sum only when they give you a vicar you like! As Save the Parish keep saying, the parish is not the branch office of the diocese.
But I am interested to know what an “active campaign to woo members of our congregation” looks like.
The diocese is not getting its money at the moment. We need to fix the organ and the roof first. However, a priest is not optional – we need one and the diocese is the only way we can get one so meeting the diocese some of the way will need to be done. As such we do have to tolerate to a degree the archdeacon throwing his weight around – but not from the pulpit. Thankfully our churchwardens have already drafted a letter to him about that. Save the Parish’s siege mentality is good for certain things, but going… Read more »
Oliver, I am sure I am teaching you to suck eggs here, but the parish share is not just to pay for ministry in your parish, but helps contribute to supporting ministry in areas where the congregation don’t have a chance of paying. Its a Common Fund (as many Dioceses call it). So please lets stop withdrawing money or making it conditional on you getting your vicar, because in doing so, you are cutting off the oxygen supply to places which need it desperately. Right now it feels like we need to save the church and not just the parish… Read more »
Oliver’s parish needs a vicar desperately, and isn’t getting one. And the threat being held over them by the archdeacon gives the lie to the claim that the parish share is to support ministry in parishes which can’t pay. A number of dioceses are now explicitly tying payment of the parish share to getting a vicar. Those who can’t pay, don’t get.
Sorry just seen this. No I don’t think I will as I don’t want to get any of the good people who volunteer their time and effort to my church in trouble by association.
Exactly. When I looked it up on Google it seemed this was a common concern about church planting and there seemed to be lots of blogs about how to do this ethically. The consensus amongst the bloggers I read was that going behind a church leadership’s back (priest and PCC in the case of CofE) was not ethical practice and that requests for support in the mission should be upfront and open. Obviously this is very difficult when the actual (hidden) strategic purpose of a resource church is to kill off the prior existing worship communities to make way for… Read more »
Jonathan Jamal
12 days ago
One of the Greatest claims of the Unitarian Church is to be non Credal, which can be a nonsense in itself, for being non Creedal can become a Creed in itself. One could ask the very direct question is the Church of England moving towards Unitarianism in some of its Parish Churches? For Unitarianism is not only about the rejection of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity but of any Orthodox formulations. It deliberately sets out to be Non-Orthodox in its approach. A Unitarian Minister in their preaching will have to offer as many alternatives as possible, which some could… Read more »
if you don’t believe in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, then one thing is certain, you are not a Christian. That is one certainty we can all agree on, yes?
A friend of mine who was at the time rector of a rural parish in a fishing community told me about a Trinity Sunday sermon experience. After the liturgy he greeted a visitor at the door. My friend assumed from the visitor’s décontractée appearance that he was one of the local fisherman turned up for church. He was taken aback when the visitor with a wry smile said to my friend, “very nice heresy this morning, Father”. lol. Turns out the guy was a professor of theology from The States and a new summer resident. As a result of this… Read more »
Well there are the ( small) Non Subscribing Unitarians of Ulster many of whom are Trinitarian. An interesting story in the history of Ulster Presbyterianism.
I am all for dialogue with other faiths. However I think dialogue can only come from being rooted in a Tradition, not by diluting one’s own tradition to be accommodating to other faith traditions. From my own experience of being involved in Inter-Faith Dialogue in Edinburgh under the auspices of the Edinburgh Inter-Faith Association, people of other faiths do not respect Christians who dilute their own Christian Tradition to be accomodating to other faith Traditions, people of other faith traditions want us Christians to be full blooded Christians who have the courage of the convictions of our Christian faith. However… Read more »
The best riposte I can think of is the story of a London showman, over a century ago, who ran two road locomotives, a McLaren and a Burrell, but had only the one tax disc, for the former. He swapped it between them, and hid the Burrell’s makers plates behind improvised decorations. One day he was flagged by a policeman, who informed him he was being done for having an unlicensed engine on the road. When he remonstrated, the officer said “Well, it’s the first time I’ve ever seen McLaren wheels on a Burrell – they won’t fit, and I… Read more »
Unitarians have told me that they don’t actively reject what we would call orthodox formulations, they just don’t require them. So some Unitarians believe in the Trinity, but it’s not mandatory. And a sermon won’t have to lay out all the options on a topic, but will probably select a few they find helpful.
As for readings from other faiths – how many Christian preachers have quoted Virgil, Socrates, Terry Pratchett, or Bob Dylan?
Some members of the Unitarian Church are in fact trinitarians. They just don’t think that belief is required of them. However, I imagine that trinitarian Unitarians are quite rare. (I think this is a case where the capital letter distinguishes the denomination from those whose beliefs are unitarian.) I once participated in the funeral of a young woman, which was held in a Unitarian church. (Long story – she was a patient in the hospice in my parish, and I had been ministering to her and her family. So when they asked me to take part I didn’t feel I… Read more »
I’ve only ever met one Unitarian; he happily told me he was one, and in a friendly conversation I said that, going on what little I’d read, Unitarianism seemed to say you believed whatever you wished. Asked if this was an accurate impression, he smiled and said ‘That’s about right, yes’.
It seems that a goodly number of Victorian people who are popularly portrayed as ‘Christians’ were actually members of the Unitarian church; from memory Florence Nightingale and George Stephenson were among them. And George, for certain, is buried in a CofE church. Make of that what you will.
I went to a Unitarian school, which meant we had to be thoughtful about hymns for morning assembly. But apart from that RE was, to use a favourite TA word, ‘orthodox’, and I and others were prepared for confirmation by the local vicar. I remain, with some difficulty these days, an Anglican. More generally I find Unitarians long on tolerance and practical humanity. Indeed I’d say that they live very much in accordance with the two great commandments. Something which is not always so visible in Anglicans. In the C19 they produced some outstanding reformers in public life but were… Read more »
Indeed not – nor a good many other parts of their history, in the 19th or any other century. Part of me, firmly cemented into evangelical theology, struggles to cope with the narrow demand that someone must be ‘born again’ and conform to set doctrines to receive eternal life – and that it may actually be a much wider experience that may not involve that degree of written, legal certainty. Poets and artists may have a better concept of God’s realities than scientists or mathematicians – and essentially I’m more of an artist. (Some great engineers were also great artists,… Read more »
Anglican Priest
10 days ago
A superb account of the situation in East Fife, where I lived for nine years. Informative, as one wonders about the future of the CofE or TEC or ACoC. https://archive.ph/6ZsKJ
Depressing to read the usual wee free lies about the Kirk preaching relativism or not preaching the resurrection without an opportunity being given for rebuttal. The Kirk’s main problem is that it’s deeply, deeply dull. Its decline has been decades in the making – I have articles on my desk lamenting the shortage of ministers and the reluctance of folk to come to my local Kirk from the 1950s.
I rarely encounter the FT, given its paywall, but if you propagate an article, describing it as “superb”, then deflect rather than engage with criticism of it your behaviour starts to look like trolling.
Thanks for that perspective. Anglican Priest’s comment, ” …one wonders about the future of C of E or TEC or ACoC…” The comment is another example of his being continually occupied with trolling these provinces of The Communion with what ever is at hand. He no doubt wishes they were more like ACNA.
Rod, there are a lot of people wondering about the future of our province, and not all of them are conservatives. Meanwhile the national church continues to demonstrate that it is completely out of its depth when it comes to the central issue of sharing the gospel and making new disciples for Christ. My good fried Judy Paulsen was director of the Wycliffe College Institute of Evangelism for a good many years, and I know she is very discouraged about the complete lack of interest in evangelism in most Anglican circles in Canada. I believe most of us are hiding… Read more »
Here in the C of E we are a parochial church and therefore mission has been done largely through pastoral care esp the Occasional Offices which can be opportunities to awaken and re- awaken faith Now with the massive decline of baptisms/ weddings/ funerals/.confirmation coupled esp in rural areas with multi church benefices the whole profile of the C of E is simply less visible. And as that has been the model for centuries it isn’t clear what the best ways for mission are now given the sort of society we have become and where all voluntary agencies (and that… Read more »
Yes, that applies to the Anglican Church of Canada too. And it is no longer working. I think the Acts 8 model is the way forward: ‘That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria…Now those who were scattered went from place to place proclaiming the word.’ Relational witness—lowering people’s anxieties about it, and raising their confidence level—is key. I mean, yes, of course our faith community must be serving its neighbours, but that by itself is not going to spread the gospel and… Read more »
P.S. Perry, you said ‘the whole profile of the C of E is simply less visible’. I think what you mean (given that the occasional offices are largely a clerical enterprise) is that the profile of C of E clergy is simply less visible. But surely the witness of a Christian congregation is the responsibility of the whole congregation?
Yes the profile of the clergy is less visible ( parson, a word never used of the clergy now) and yes it is the responsibility of the whole congregation…but that does need building up, as you say raising confidence…and no doubt in some places it is happening but there are an awful lot of factors at the moment militating against it not least confidence in the parochial model itself.
such a bizarre gas-light. I’d like anglican churches to face the challenges they have and not just keep inventing ideas like, the Ten Commandments are sub-Christian, or the latest TA fad — How cool is the Didache, etc.
“such a bizarre gas-light.” My Rogerian response is something like: Mmm hmm. I hear what you are saying. You feel gas lit. Have you ever considered that others may experience your comments that way? Just putting it out there. We can pick that up on a future thread perhaps?
My reference to the Ten Commandments as “sub-Christian” was a quote from someone else, and possibly inappropriate and offensive. If so, I do apologize. However, the point may be that they are particular to a certain historical setting, culture, and worldview, that are not always relevant to society, and were not especially relevant in the First Century. Note that Jesus did not refer to them, but only used the z summary of the Law and the New Commandment. Those like the rich young ruler and the Pharisee who went to the Temple to pray bragged that they had kept the… Read more »
“Jew” is extremely rarely a term of reference in the OT, to the point of non-existence. The Tanak is for Jews, after the OT period, the source for Jewish life as filtered through the Talmud. The Ten Commandments have no more prominent role within Jewish life than Christian life down the centuries, and if anything, far less. The catechetical practice of virtually every Christian tradition has been Decalogue, Apostles Creed, Lord’s Prayer. The OT is the first testament of Christian Scripture. Jews (post-biblical) know this and do not typically contest it. They too take the Tanak and hear it with… Read more »
I believe the earliest reference to ‘Jew’ is in Esther, where it appears several times. Your opinion of Esther is likely to affect your views on the validity of the word. As for the Ten Commandments, Steve Chalke pointed out that God gave them to us as principles for all societies, not so much as rigid rules but as guidelines for our good; make the Lord the centre of your life, do certain things and avoid others – basically because God knows the blessings and hurts which doing these things will bring. Steve puts them in a very positive light,… Read more »
Before the pandemic, C of E attendance was falling at about 3% per year. If the article about growth in attendance in resource churches is correct, then decline in other churches must be taking place at a greater rate than this. I would like to see a detailed breakdown of the attendance numbers by tradition.
Tradition doesn’t tell the whole story. Geography and demographic may be more important. For instance, do churches grow when the vicar has anything between 5 and 12 to look after? Or when the population is highly mobile, and people don’t stick around for long? When services are frequently disrupted by hooligans, or worshippers’ cars are vandalised?
Exactly. From my pew in a deeply rural church – benefice of 5, we have 3 services a month (2 lay led) the single most sensible thing the CofE could do is get an ordained priest into as many parishes as possible*. *Then* think about other things they might want to spend money on.
*and if that means locally ordained ministers or whatever as part of the mix then so be it.
I am hoping that St Helens Bishopsgate might have, probably inadvertently, set an helpful precedent in terms of the Eucharist.
I am puzzled here. Do you mean SHB have helpfully introduced celebrants of the eucharist who are not ordained? Is that something you would approve of? Or have I got it completely the wrong way round.
yes but you advocate for lay presidency – I just want the CofE to focus its resources on providing more priests and maintaining buildings…
I feel a wave of nausea hitting my gut.
Are apostasy and schism now something to rejoice over?
Best answer I could find :’The balance between strands of churchmanship is not static: in 2013, 40% of Church of England worshippers attended evangelical churches (compared with 26% in 1989), and 83% of very large congregations were evangelical. ’
Most resource churches are evangelical and growing so best guess 45% evangelical in 2024 with around 6% decline each year in other traditions.
Just in the FWIW category, here one sees the enormous difference between the CofE and TEC. Both bodies may reside within a rubric called ‘anglican’ but TEC is a very different church. ‘Evangelical’ in the US is entirely outside TEC, with some very rare exceptions.
You are right. The evangelicals and fundamentalists here in the US are largely in other denominations and are not Episcopalians. In general they also have different affiliations in national politics. In some cases, they believe in the “prosperity gospel.” We in TEC are almost certainly never going to accept lay presidency in even the smallest, most remote church, much less one in the center of a large city.
In Canada there had long been an Evangelical tradition based on things like Wycliffe College or the Church Army and major cities usually had one or more very consciously “low church.” But this was usually much more about BCP Churchmanship. However, the Charismatic Movement gained ground in the 70s and 80s, and theological conflict and Liturgical change created a different dynamic, with some “low” churches taking a more conservative, Charismatic path. Old fashioned “low church” Anglicanism became less common. The Book of Alternative Services did not provide for a non-Eucharistic Sunday liturgy. Things like a weekly Sunday Eucharist informed by… Read more »
In the US, “evangelical” generally translates as “fundamentalist” with a strong insistence on the inerrancy of Scripture. These are the folks who object to the inclusion of evolution in high school biology courses, who insist that geology courses ignore the scientific evidence for the age of the earth measuring in billions of years, etc.
So sad, really. Have you ever read Christianity Today, the major Evangelical weekly? No, fundamentalism is something like a shibboleth that liberal Episcopalians, cosseted in their tiny domain, have no real contact with. And so confuse with evangelicalism the early 19th century ‘fundamentals’ movement that places like Dallas Seminary have for 50 years at least moved on from. It actually pains me to hear these kinds of, truly out of touch with basic reality, slogans. I am neither a ‘fundamentalist’ nor an ‘evangelical.’ It shows you how far removed TEC is from the places like the CofE where ‘evangelicai’ is… Read more »
In my seven decades of life, I have never met an American who called himself/herself “evangelical” who was not also fundamentalist.
I have never met an evangelical who would accept the label fundamentalist – see J I Packer’s “Fundamentalism and the Word of God.”
That says it all.
Jimmy Carter, Philip Yancey. Francis Collins. Carmen Joy Imes. Roberta Hestenes. Ronald J. Sider. Eugene Peterson. Tony Campolo. Shane Claiborne. Richard Hays. Beth Allison Barr. Kristen Kobes Du Mez. Stanley Grenz. And I didn’t even have to try very hard to come up with this list. Also please note that when the American popular media uses the word ‘fundamentalist’ to describe religious terrorists, it’s really, really offensive to use the same word for peaceful, law-abiding, compassionate Christians like the people who started World Vision and Habitat for Humanity. ‘Fundamentalist; is now one of the media’s favourite f-words. That you want… Read more »
Not to mention one of the highest profile climate scientist in north America today, Katharine Hayhoe.
When one examines the opposition to same sex marriage what one finds is a belief that binary heteronormativity is ‘biblical’ and ‘revealed’, a dismissal of empirical evidence with regard to human sexuality, the promotion of marriage as a ‘fundamental doctrine’ which the church cannot change, etc. etc. Checks all all the boxes of classic fundamentalism. So yes, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
So C.S. Lewis was a fundamentalist?
Tim, Ambivalence is the best way I can describe my view of C.S. Lewis. We made Narnia available to all our children when they were young. My first introduction to Lewis was via the Screwtape Letters in my first year of university. It was a class in Moral Theology. The prof was an Irish Dominican who had done his doctoral thesis on Lewis at the Angelicum. The presentation fitted in very nicely with the Catholic notion of a ‘revealed morality’ which was essentially very conservative–and which I have long since abandoned as such. I went onto to read more of… Read more »
In “classical” Anglicanism, “Evangelical” does not mean “fundamentalist.” It means more or less “low church” or Protestant. In England today it can mean a rather Protestant style of worship, often with a charismatic edge. But no Anglican churches are officially “fundamentalist”, although some clergy or laity may be. Fundamentalism in America usually means Biblical literalism, but that has not been a mainstream Anglican tradition since the 19th Century, although there are places where fundamentalism would not be eschewed. Anglicans, like many mainline denominations and Roman Catholics, accept Biblical criticism and scholarship. In practice, though, some have not really gotten that… Read more »
‘These are the folks who object to the inclusion of evolution in high school biology courses, who insist that geology courses ignore the scientific evidence for the age of the earth measuring in billions of years, etc.’
Have you even read Francis Collins’ ‘The Language of God’? This is the guy who led the human genome project, a brilliant scientist, founder of BioLogos, and a convinced evangelical. More scientists in the same ilk can be found on their speakers’ bureau page.
That is a good point Tim. Like you I know scientists who are committed evangelicals, devout Catholics, observant Jews, devout Buddhists, and of course agnostics or atheists etc. One of the cosmologists who worked with Stephen Hawking for a time was an evangelical Christian if I recall. I know evangelicals here who have no issue with same sex marriage. However, when it comes to the same sex marriage issue, in many cases the arguments put forward by opponents really do have a striking similarity to classical fundamentalism. It is a kind religio-political evolution if you will pardon the pun. It… Read more »
When people analyse trends in churches there seems to me to be a lot of confirmation bias. Resource churches are generally well-resourced churches in centres of population. A comparison with cathedrals might be interesting (perhaps the original “resource church” model?) Many cathedrals are, of course, in centres where population has shifted. The assumption that one factor is dominant in growth is not well tested. There is also some largely forgotten reflection on faith growth in individuals – what is the faith-life-cycle of a person who worships at a resource church at some point in their life? What kinds of questions… Read more »
Yes. Evangelical churches in general are usually in population centres, often suburban or city centre, with congregations well enough off to provide extra resources like admin, youth leaders, paid musicians, and pastoral workers. Just look at the staff list of many big evo churches. In small towns and villages, a smaller group of people are usually struggling to maintain a building and pay the parish share, never mind any extras. And there is only a small surrounding population to increase the size of the congregation.
Plant near us ticks boxes for being in town & big building, but has very poor parking availability, so despite all the investment it has not taken off. They did a full immersion baptism session in the sea recently, only a few people, & regarded as rather brave given the well-known high level of sewage discharge locally by good old southern water
My own observation is that there are many evangelical churches not in population centres. The large well noticed evangelical churches are in population centres; but there are also normally 3 or 4 other Anglican buildings in the same population centre – which aren’t full. In my nearest town there are 7 large Church of England buildings. Six are pretty empty or closed on a Sunday, one (not the grandest) has to have 4 services every Sunday to accommodate people. Its tradition is evangelical. I understand that appointing extra clergy there is opposed by the diocese, despite the obvious need. My… Read more »
Well, that’s good news. How would you characterise the town and the villages in terms of relative affluence?
Ours is the least affluent village in our area with the cheapest housing stock.
The other villages are financially better off and have some wealthy individuals in the churches, but the churches are small and shrinking. Those wealthy individuals seem to have a lot of influence with our archdeacon who appears to share their theology and distaste for evangelicals.
The town has some very prosperous parts and some areas that are really not prosperous at all. The churches in the town run a foodbank which is both well-supported and well-used. It is a help to many in our village.
That’s encouraging, thanks.
I am surprised given the current state of rural Anglicanism these village churches appear not to be in multi church benefices.
I’m surprised too. Here in the South West multi church benefices are the rural norm. Also – given the preponderance of Evangelical curates and dearth of Catholic ones – if you are a parish in a central to Catholic tradition, then vestments are often left to gather mould in sacristy cupboards, sometimes along with much of the tradition.
Country congregations feel the loss, but are typically reluctant to complain; as one lady said to me: “here in the sticks we’re grateful to have a priest at all”.
Yes Allan. The moderate Prayer Book Catholic ethos that was pervasive in much of the Southern Province in my youth has all but disappeared.
And, Perry, I think that what has replaced it in many Prayer Book Catholic parishes is not so much Evangelical worship complete with charismatic choruses (PBC parishes will accept only so much) but amorphous middle-of-the-road worship unmoored in a tradition. Does this matter? I don’t know. But I do wonder if it wins many for Christ.
I would agree. Unmoored is a good word..lacking in roots, or any sort of distinct identity in a pluralist society where identity is rather important?
.Congregation sizes need to be seen in context. There is a concentration of churches in rural areas. Bath and Wells and Norwich dioceses each have more churches than London Diocese, which has well over four times the population. Many of these churches do not have services every sunday as one priest serves several churches.
Re Giles Fraser “Why can’t the Church say church?” I have noted a tendency lately to avoid using any traditional “church” language because it is considered old-fashioned, hard to understand, or off-putting. The same applies to any specific doctrines. The Creeds are not used, or something else is substituted, usually something that avoids the Incarnation, Cross, or Resurrection. The thinking seems to be that “attracting” people with little or no faith background is easier when you tell them they don’t need to actually believe very much. I worry that it’s a projection from the clergy. Why would this work? If… Read more »
I agree. There is a parish church near me that refuses to say the creeds because “they constrain faith”. They also have replaced “this is the word of the Lord “ with “where is God’s word for today”. Their clergy prefer mystery to certainty.
I agree too. For what it is worth, I do the rounds of churches and have done for some years. The churches I least expect to include any form of creed in their worship or the liturgical refrain for scripture readings are within the evangelicals tradition actually.
Yes, my experience across several northern dioceses is that evangelical parishes very often only have one Bible reading, which is short and chosen by the vicar even during the two major seasonal blocks in the calendar. They sometimes also leave out structured intercessions and the Lord’s Prayer as well as the creed. It’s a very long way from the strong Prayer Book tradition which I first encountered in evangelical churches in the 1970s.
This would be a strong cultural difference from the few remaining evangelicals in the Anglican Church of Canada; to the best of my knowledge, most of them still seem to use the prescribed liturgies – if often in a more laid-back form – and follow the lectionary.
To repeat myself, Wycliffe is BCP and Alternative Rite at every morning worship, and Wed evening corporate HC. Chanted psalms. I think evangelical anglican, where it exists outside of the CofE, exists in the context of generic evangelicalism. In Wycliffe’s case, this means showing our non anglican students what Anglican worship is. Many will in time become Anglican.
It is ironic that by the time Common Worship appeared Commonality was disappearing. Some evangelical parishes abandoned lectionary, much of the calendar and sat light to much liturgy even significantly abbreviating the eucharistic prayer as well as abandoning robes.And traditional Catholic parishes moved on to the new Roman Rite often abandoning westward celebration.I don’t imagine any other Anglican Province has this level of diversity and loss of family likeness.
The best of Common Worship (e.g. the Long Preface for Ordinary Time) becomes richer and more resonant through use; liturgy to grow into, not out of. However, in a culture that prizes novelty, the temptation is do it differently every time; aided by CW’s surfeit of alternatives. We have become like kids let loose in a liturgical sweet shop, with little confidence in allowing the Eucharist to just get on and do its work. No wonder Anglican memory is becoming Anglican amnesia.
My church is unashamedly evangelistic in outlook, and regularly uses a variant of the creed in our worship; usually in modern language and in a simple form but affirming our beliefs none the less. The bidding prayer, confession and structured intercessory prayers follow similar lines, and are very much an important part of our worship, although they aren’t formally given such titles. What matters is that they’re used, and that the central core of our faith is affirmed each week.
In my naiveté, I had assumed that the Creed was one of the few essentials in a service.
No, it isn’t. At both the Eucharist and at a Service of the Word the Creed is compulsory on Sundays and Principal Holy Days. At other times it may be omitted. Another authorized affirmation of faith may be used, but this should not be the norm at the Eucharist.
No provision for it to be omitted in BCP
No indeed, but very few places actually use the BCP – even if they use the books! Much more likely they are using CW Order Two in Traditional Language. And that has essentially the same rubric as CW Order One: “The Creed is used on every Sunday and Holy Day and may be used on other days also.” In other words, it is optional on ordinary weekdays.
I wonder if this is true of the Scottish Episcopal Church? The Edinburgh church I worship with (online) never uses the Creed. Any creed.
I worship at St Mary’s Cathedral, Palmerston Place, Edinburgh and the creed is always said at the Eucharist on Sundays. However, I would not want to generalise about the usage across the SEC on the basis of this example.
According to the Liturgy published on the SEC website, revised in 2022, the Creed ‘may be included or omitted according to the season or the circumstances’.
I feel Richard Grand is right to be concerned that dumbing down the Creed is ‘a projection from the clergy’. He is supported by research by the Baptism Project which revealed that this is more a symptom of clerical anxiety than it is an issue for families – even (especially?) unchurched families. However, while dumbing down the Creed may betoken a loss of clerical confidence, it’s a stretch to go from that to condemning the same clergy for preferring mystery to certainty. Is there no place in the Church of Bob for a faith that is enquiring, at times hesitant,… Read more »
Certainly faith should be enquiring as we seek to know Christ and to know Him more. Certainly doubts are normal as we seek to become mature in Christ. I was speaking from experience when I referred to a local parish church in which the creeds are not said and the clergy do prefer mystery to the certainty found in the bible.
I feel we’re not on the same page here. You appear to find certainty in the Bible; I find that ‘the plain meaning of Scripture’ (to borrow a phrase from the conservative Evangelical world) is frequently elusive, often mysterious, and seldom obvious at first blush.
Surely there are certainties in the Christian gospel, in the Christian message, in the Christian faith?
That’s why we have preaching. To make some attempt at explanation or applying it to context. At least that’s what I thought. The whole thing was blown sky high for me when a curate I had managed ton preach a Mothering Sunday sermon without reference to Jesus (or his mother). The curate would call himself an Evangelical and (as I found out later) thought I was not quite the ticket. When questioned about it he couldn’t understand what the problem was. Strange.
Some things, usually of a personal nature, are pretty obvious – thou shalt not steal, covet or commit adultery, undoubtedly. The trouble comes with all the rest – the different bits which different groups choose to emphasise on matters of church organisation and expectations of God for example. My ‘plain meaning’ is likely to be different from yours, inevitably – and according to which translations we’re using. As a simple layman I find a lot of the hair splitting over the meanings of words etc confusing; lacking knowledge of Greek or Hebrew means I have to put a lot of… Read more »
I used to be annoyed with God for not making the Bible clearer. When you look at an individual verse or short passage it might seem clear – but then you can usually find another text that says something different. E.g. Romans says we are saved by faith alone, but Mat 25 says it’s what we do for others that determines whether we are saved. Then there are vast chunks open to interpretation – poetry, parable, narrative. Why couldn’t God have just laid out a list of rules and required beliefs, and skipped the rest? Then we could have been… Read more »
Well said, Janet.
Thank you, Janet, for putting this better than I could have done. The Bible lives in the Church and its reception there. It is not an instruction manual; it is about our hearts and God’s heart.
How would God have made the Bible clearer? Perhaps an editor before it was sent to the publisher? I don’t understand your question. If someone had written the rules on God’s behalf, would we accept them? And surely this would do away with a need for the Incarnation if we knew all the rules someone had already written.
It wasn’t a question, but a description of the frustration I used to feel because I couldn’t find in the Bible the certainty I craved. Having been brought up conservative evangelical, that was where I’d been taught to look for certainty – or security, if you prefer that word.
I still have an enormous respect for the Bible, but I think the only place we can look for certainty, or security, is in the loving heart of God.
Didn’t God lay out a set of rules in the Ten Commandments?
Moses delivered them to Jews
And they are irrelevant for Christians? In spite of centuries of church architecture, and anglican catechisms.
They’re irrelevant to Christians who follow Jesus’ commandment to love God, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself.
Unbelievable.
Lenten recitation of the Decalogue, long Catholic practice, now otiose.
I’m a priest of 50 years. I memorized the Ten Commandments for Confirmation at age twelve. But the fact is that they are not, strictly speaking, “Christian.” At best they are sub-Christian or helpful to understand the context of the New Testament. In the NT, some say to Jesus, “I have kept the commandments,” presumably the Law, and Jesus gives another measure of faith. Or some say they are faithful to commandments, but their attitude is seen as hypocrisy in other things. There is nothing bad about them, but the Ten Commandments are never touted by Jesus or other NT… Read more »
Not irrelevant, although their is a tendency in the Evangelical world to put the 10 Commandments before the Cross. Ironic given the absolute centrality of the Cross in Evangelical thought.
Hence the movement in the US among far-right Christians to require things like posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms….leading those of us with more biblical knowledge than others to ask, “which version”?
I have often wondered why these “Christians” elevate the Decalogue above the Beatitudes or what Jesus called the two “Great Commandments”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone saying the Ten Commandments were otiose.
I have certainly never heard of evangelicals moving the cross to the side in favor of the decalogue.
I guess it is time for a break from TA. A respite is good for the soul. And I am in France for 3.5 weeks. The home of enormous crucifixes dotting the landscape. a plus tard.
One CofE church I attend usually has no cross, and when it does it is to one side, never central. Sometimes near the table, sometimes near the steps. The table at the front holds an open Bible (which this church resolutely spells ‘bible’ despite the efforts of the previous parish administrator and others) and normally flowers. Behind the table the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed are written on wooden boards.
“I have certainly never heard of evangelicals moving the cross to the side in favor of the decalogue.”
Not been to Louisiana lately?
Of course. But the 10 Commandments, while very helpful, are hardly exhaustive. And the rest of Leviticus, which filled in the details for ancient Hebrews, was a bit hard to implement in 20th century Britain, and didn’t cover a lot of scenarios like how much I could conscientiously spend on myself, and what kind of career to go for – let alone how assertive I should be with a difficult flatmate. I was looking for certainty and there were so many questions.
There is no doubt friendship and belonging is are essential parts of what people are seeking when they come into church but it is ultimately the realisation that there is total forgiveness in Jesus, the hope of the resurrection and the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives that will anchor people into life long faith. So that all needs to be heard at some stage during someones church experience.
Totally agree Simon. I can get friendship and belonging in any club, walking group etc. I can get social action as a volunteer. I get forgiveness of sins only through Christ.
‘If we tell people we don’t consider faith important and/or that it doesn’t matter if we believe much of anything, why would people bother coming at all?’
EXACTLY. I can not believe in anything in particular much more comfortably from my living room sofa in my dressing gown on Sunday morning.
“God’s New Thing” was a favourite catchphrase in the early days of the renewal movement, but I’ve not heard it used for a good many years. Nor, as yet, have I come across it locally, so I can’t comment on this ‘rebranding exercise.’ Such ‘rebranding’ seems to occur frequently though when a publication or other organisation has lost its sense of purpose or ‘market’ – ‘Christian Woman’ became ‘Woman Alive’ for example, and ‘Buzz’ turned into ’21CC’, without much success and doubtless you can think of others. As an ‘insider’ I can recognise the reference – there’s a scripture somewhere… Read more »
To those who do understand it it is verging on blasphemy. Just because God did a new thing does not mean every new thing is of God.
Nicely put, sir. Change is not always for the better – change for the sake of change alone can be a downright nuisance, nor does ‘new’ always mean ‘better’.
Wow – haven’t though about Buzz for a long time!
In its heyday it was amazingly radical – even got banned by Christian Literature Crusade a couple of times. But that was a long time ago.
I remember it well, and its Musical Gospel Outreach stable.
It is total projection by people who think they know what the ‘unchurched’ want. I’ve heard all the same arguments against choirs and organs as well.
It seems we have far too many people making decisions who think that church should be coffee and a comfy chat.
The reality is that we need to rebuild connection between community and our church and that has nothing to do with our forms of worship. People aren’t put off by chorus, organs, creeds and liturgy they simply don’t think about our church at all.
The CofE is just following a well worn path of corporate failure. When in trouble looking to the exciting and new to get us out of trouble at the neglect of business as usual. It doesn’t work, either the organisation fails or it changes beyond recognition into something that is no longer recognisable as the organisation that once was alienating many and being susceptible to unscrupulous leadership.
As has been said by others, stop trying to replace churches and sow division in our parishes and support parish ministry.
I suppose I have a negative view of resource churches as a result of how they impacted the parish I worship in. Several years ago a resource church was set up in our parish. There was an active campaign to woo members of our congregation to this “new expression” and a number of our congregation left to join this church while we were in vacancy (I.e. in a vulnerable position). This caused quite a lot of pain and mistrust as it was clear that the way the new church was going about its business was to focus on damaging existing… Read more »
You know parish share is optional, right? You don’t need to pay it. The only thing your diocese can do is take away your vicar. If they’ve already done that, then keep the money and tell them that you’ll give them a lump sum only when they give you a vicar you like! As Save the Parish keep saying, the parish is not the branch office of the diocese.
But I am interested to know what an “active campaign to woo members of our congregation” looks like.
The diocese is not getting its money at the moment. We need to fix the organ and the roof first. However, a priest is not optional – we need one and the diocese is the only way we can get one so meeting the diocese some of the way will need to be done. As such we do have to tolerate to a degree the archdeacon throwing his weight around – but not from the pulpit. Thankfully our churchwardens have already drafted a letter to him about that. Save the Parish’s siege mentality is good for certain things, but going… Read more »
Oliver, I am sure I am teaching you to suck eggs here, but the parish share is not just to pay for ministry in your parish, but helps contribute to supporting ministry in areas where the congregation don’t have a chance of paying. Its a Common Fund (as many Dioceses call it). So please lets stop withdrawing money or making it conditional on you getting your vicar, because in doing so, you are cutting off the oxygen supply to places which need it desperately. Right now it feels like we need to save the church and not just the parish… Read more »
Oliver’s parish needs a vicar desperately, and isn’t getting one. And the threat being held over them by the archdeacon gives the lie to the claim that the parish share is to support ministry in parishes which can’t pay. A number of dioceses are now explicitly tying payment of the parish share to getting a vicar. Those who can’t pay, don’t get.
Janet, it’s A-not-so-humble-parishioner’s parish, not mine, but yes, you’re right.
The cost of relying on the diocese for funding is that you’re obliged to do what they say.
My apologies for confusing you with A-not-so-humble!
Are you willing to identify the diocese. [Sorry – question mark key stuck!]
Sorry just seen this. No I don’t think I will as I don’t want to get any of the good people who volunteer their time and effort to my church in trouble by association.
In other words the ‘resource church’ practiced what used to be called sheep-stealing.
Exactly. When I looked it up on Google it seemed this was a common concern about church planting and there seemed to be lots of blogs about how to do this ethically. The consensus amongst the bloggers I read was that going behind a church leadership’s back (priest and PCC in the case of CofE) was not ethical practice and that requests for support in the mission should be upfront and open. Obviously this is very difficult when the actual (hidden) strategic purpose of a resource church is to kill off the prior existing worship communities to make way for… Read more »
One of the Greatest claims of the Unitarian Church is to be non Credal, which can be a nonsense in itself, for being non Creedal can become a Creed in itself. One could ask the very direct question is the Church of England moving towards Unitarianism in some of its Parish Churches? For Unitarianism is not only about the rejection of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity but of any Orthodox formulations. It deliberately sets out to be Non-Orthodox in its approach. A Unitarian Minister in their preaching will have to offer as many alternatives as possible, which some could… Read more »
if you don’t believe in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, then one thing is certain, you are not a Christian. That is one certainty we can all agree on, yes?
I believe in the Holy Trinity, but I’m not totally sure about placing those who don’t outside the faith. Heterodoxy is not necessarily apostasy.
A friend of mine who was at the time rector of a rural parish in a fishing community told me about a Trinity Sunday sermon experience. After the liturgy he greeted a visitor at the door. My friend assumed from the visitor’s décontractée appearance that he was one of the local fisherman turned up for church. He was taken aback when the visitor with a wry smile said to my friend, “very nice heresy this morning, Father”. lol. Turns out the guy was a professor of theology from The States and a new summer resident. As a result of this… Read more »
Well there are the ( small) Non Subscribing Unitarians of Ulster many of whom are Trinitarian. An interesting story in the history of Ulster Presbyterianism.
Are you suggesting there is something wrong with finding value in all the world’s varied religions?
I am all for dialogue with other faiths. However I think dialogue can only come from being rooted in a Tradition, not by diluting one’s own tradition to be accommodating to other faith traditions. From my own experience of being involved in Inter-Faith Dialogue in Edinburgh under the auspices of the Edinburgh Inter-Faith Association, people of other faiths do not respect Christians who dilute their own Christian Tradition to be accomodating to other faith Traditions, people of other faith traditions want us Christians to be full blooded Christians who have the courage of the convictions of our Christian faith. However… Read more »
Jonathan, these two guys are a wonderful example of how to do it well.
https://comment.org/podcasts/zealots-at-the-gate/
The best riposte I can think of is the story of a London showman, over a century ago, who ran two road locomotives, a McLaren and a Burrell, but had only the one tax disc, for the former. He swapped it between them, and hid the Burrell’s makers plates behind improvised decorations. One day he was flagged by a policeman, who informed him he was being done for having an unlicensed engine on the road. When he remonstrated, the officer said “Well, it’s the first time I’ve ever seen McLaren wheels on a Burrell – they won’t fit, and I… Read more »
Unitarians have told me that they don’t actively reject what we would call orthodox formulations, they just don’t require them. So some Unitarians believe in the Trinity, but it’s not mandatory. And a sermon won’t have to lay out all the options on a topic, but will probably select a few they find helpful.
As for readings from other faiths – how many Christian preachers have quoted Virgil, Socrates, Terry Pratchett, or Bob Dylan?
If they believe in the trinity then surely they are not, in fact, Unitarians?
Some members of the Unitarian Church are in fact trinitarians. They just don’t think that belief is required of them. However, I imagine that trinitarian Unitarians are quite rare. (I think this is a case where the capital letter distinguishes the denomination from those whose beliefs are unitarian.) I once participated in the funeral of a young woman, which was held in a Unitarian church. (Long story – she was a patient in the hospice in my parish, and I had been ministering to her and her family. So when they asked me to take part I didn’t feel I… Read more »
I’ve only ever met one Unitarian; he happily told me he was one, and in a friendly conversation I said that, going on what little I’d read, Unitarianism seemed to say you believed whatever you wished. Asked if this was an accurate impression, he smiled and said ‘That’s about right, yes’.
It seems that a goodly number of Victorian people who are popularly portrayed as ‘Christians’ were actually members of the Unitarian church; from memory Florence Nightingale and George Stephenson were among them. And George, for certain, is buried in a CofE church. Make of that what you will.
I went to a Unitarian school, which meant we had to be thoughtful about hymns for morning assembly. But apart from that RE was, to use a favourite TA word, ‘orthodox’, and I and others were prepared for confirmation by the local vicar. I remain, with some difficulty these days, an Anglican. More generally I find Unitarians long on tolerance and practical humanity. Indeed I’d say that they live very much in accordance with the two great commandments. Something which is not always so visible in Anglicans. In the C19 they produced some outstanding reformers in public life but were… Read more »
I agree. I’ve been impressed by the few Unitarians I’ve known.
Indeed not – nor a good many other parts of their history, in the 19th or any other century. Part of me, firmly cemented into evangelical theology, struggles to cope with the narrow demand that someone must be ‘born again’ and conform to set doctrines to receive eternal life – and that it may actually be a much wider experience that may not involve that degree of written, legal certainty. Poets and artists may have a better concept of God’s realities than scientists or mathematicians – and essentially I’m more of an artist. (Some great engineers were also great artists,… Read more »
A superb account of the situation in East Fife, where I lived for nine years. Informative, as one wonders about the future of the CofE or TEC or ACoC. https://archive.ph/6ZsKJ
Depressing to read the usual wee free lies about the Kirk preaching relativism or not preaching the resurrection without an opportunity being given for rebuttal. The Kirk’s main problem is that it’s deeply, deeply dull. Its decline has been decades in the making – I have articles on my desk lamenting the shortage of ministers and the reluctance of folk to come to my local Kirk from the 1950s.
Take it up with the Financial Times my friend.
I rarely encounter the FT, given its paywall, but if you propagate an article, describing it as “superb”, then deflect rather than engage with criticism of it your behaviour starts to look like trolling.
Thanks for that perspective. Anglican Priest’s comment, ” …one wonders about the future of C of E or TEC or ACoC…” The comment is another example of his being continually occupied with trolling these provinces of The Communion with what ever is at hand. He no doubt wishes they were more like ACNA.
Rod, there are a lot of people wondering about the future of our province, and not all of them are conservatives. Meanwhile the national church continues to demonstrate that it is completely out of its depth when it comes to the central issue of sharing the gospel and making new disciples for Christ. My good fried Judy Paulsen was director of the Wycliffe College Institute of Evangelism for a good many years, and I know she is very discouraged about the complete lack of interest in evangelism in most Anglican circles in Canada. I believe most of us are hiding… Read more »
Sure. I too am concerned about the future of the Canadian Church, and I’m not a conservative.
Here in the C of E we are a parochial church and therefore mission has been done largely through pastoral care esp the Occasional Offices which can be opportunities to awaken and re- awaken faith Now with the massive decline of baptisms/ weddings/ funerals/.confirmation coupled esp in rural areas with multi church benefices the whole profile of the C of E is simply less visible. And as that has been the model for centuries it isn’t clear what the best ways for mission are now given the sort of society we have become and where all voluntary agencies (and that… Read more »
Yes, that applies to the Anglican Church of Canada too. And it is no longer working. I think the Acts 8 model is the way forward: ‘That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria…Now those who were scattered went from place to place proclaiming the word.’ Relational witness—lowering people’s anxieties about it, and raising their confidence level—is key. I mean, yes, of course our faith community must be serving its neighbours, but that by itself is not going to spread the gospel and… Read more »
P.S. Perry, you said ‘the whole profile of the C of E is simply less visible’. I think what you mean (given that the occasional offices are largely a clerical enterprise) is that the profile of C of E clergy is simply less visible. But surely the witness of a Christian congregation is the responsibility of the whole congregation?
Yes the profile of the clergy is less visible ( parson, a word never used of the clergy now) and yes it is the responsibility of the whole congregation…but that does need building up, as you say raising confidence…and no doubt in some places it is happening but there are an awful lot of factors at the moment militating against it not least confidence in the parochial model itself.
such a bizarre gas-light. I’d like anglican churches to face the challenges they have and not just keep inventing ideas like, the Ten Commandments are sub-Christian, or the latest TA fad — How cool is the Didache, etc.
“such a bizarre gas-light.” My Rogerian response is something like: Mmm hmm. I hear what you are saying. You feel gas lit. Have you ever considered that others may experience your comments that way? Just putting it out there. We can pick that up on a future thread perhaps?
No one here has said The Ten Commandments are sub-Christian. They are Jewish.
“At best they are sub-Christian.” See above.
The OT is not Jewish. I sign off.
My reference to the Ten Commandments as “sub-Christian” was a quote from someone else, and possibly inappropriate and offensive. If so, I do apologize. However, the point may be that they are particular to a certain historical setting, culture, and worldview, that are not always relevant to society, and were not especially relevant in the First Century. Note that Jesus did not refer to them, but only used the z summary of the Law and the New Commandment. Those like the rich young ruler and the Pharisee who went to the Temple to pray bragged that they had kept the… Read more »
“Jew” is extremely rarely a term of reference in the OT, to the point of non-existence. The Tanak is for Jews, after the OT period, the source for Jewish life as filtered through the Talmud. The Ten Commandments have no more prominent role within Jewish life than Christian life down the centuries, and if anything, far less. The catechetical practice of virtually every Christian tradition has been Decalogue, Apostles Creed, Lord’s Prayer. The OT is the first testament of Christian Scripture. Jews (post-biblical) know this and do not typically contest it. They too take the Tanak and hear it with… Read more »
I believe the earliest reference to ‘Jew’ is in Esther, where it appears several times. Your opinion of Esther is likely to affect your views on the validity of the word. As for the Ten Commandments, Steve Chalke pointed out that God gave them to us as principles for all societies, not so much as rigid rules but as guidelines for our good; make the Lord the centre of your life, do certain things and avoid others – basically because God knows the blessings and hurts which doing these things will bring. Steve puts them in a very positive light,… Read more »
And when do you imagine that the book of Esther was written? And where does it take place?
Moses was not a Jew.