If there were more agnostics in the Church there would be less trouble and division. It’s the “Christians’ who read the bible and then hate each other who are the problem.
I assume you are are referring to those who call their fellow Christians “homophobes” and “transphobes”, and threaten them will legal action because of their deeply held, prayerfully considered and theologically based views.
Segregationists’ views were “deeply held, prayerfully considered and theologically based”. Their views and actions were still racist, and it wasn’t hate to point it out. The same applies to modern homophobia and transphobia.
Those holding to the orthodox teaching of the Church of England are not racist! Nor is holding to such teaching homophobic or transphobic! This doesn’t change not matter how many times you state it. A phobia is an irrational fear.
Please desist from claiming orthodoxy for a mere section of the CofE. We have always been a church which manages different traditions. The new wave of mud slinging is highly unedifying. Others might think the Conevos far from ‘orthodox’.
Orthodox: following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion. On that basis the current Church of England teaching on marriage is orthodox. This is teaching is held to by far more people than just the conservative evangelicals.
Orthodox comes from two greek words Orthos and doxos….meaning right and opinion.
It has nothing to do with some sort of majority first past the post.
It is a claim to be right….and therefore others to be wrong.
That is arrogant.
But the current usage of the word orthodox according to the Oxford Dictionary “generally accepted or approved of or following generally accepted beliefs” So I think it fair to say historically that the Church of Englands teaching on marriage has thus far been seen as orthodox. However in the current climate is anything still orthodox in that there is such diversity and dichotomy in “generally accepted beliefs”? However it doesn’t seem unreasonable to apply orthodox to what has been historically the position of the church and still adhered to be by a large section of the Church of England, including… Read more »
You are right, however in Greek, although orthos doxos means ‘right worship’ it can also have connotations of ‘right opinion’. Either can be right in particular circumstances or contexts.
It would be good if some our enthusiasts for personal rectitude and the right to proclaim solely their point of view as orthodox could realise that in the grey areas of theology both points of view can be both right and orthodox.
We all have our phobias be it spiders or heights or whatever. We could add conevophobia and happyclappyphobia to the list! Jesus came to draw us away from our phobias into a place of absolute trust in Him. I have come to the settled position in the last 3 years that it is perfectly possible to be opposed to the current direction of LLF and not be homophobic or transphobic. Im certainly not phobic (have an irrational fear) of same sex attracted people or those who have transitioned.
Opposing PLF or the direction of travel of LLF does not mean that I am unwilling to share a pew with anyone. Do you ask someone about their gender, preferred pronouns or sexuality before sitting next to them? I don’t! Nor do I ask if they are a murderer, thief, adulterer, gossip etc.
I think Pat you are making a huge assumption here. I worship in a church who has had trans and same sex attracted people in it for many years and have sat next to them on many occasions!
The issue here is not sharing the pew with SSA people or any sinners (we are all sinners) but whether the Christian doctrine allows blessings of SS relationships. There are two settled positions in SSA/SSM and both going in opposite directions. You could argue this is not a serious difference to fall out on but then what else will we not agree on in future. Can Jesus be so different to different people?
We already disagree on whether women can be ordained or whether divorcees can remarry during the lifetime of their former spouse. Neither issue (despite resting on stronger Biblical warrant than opposition to equal marriage) has been deemed by evangelicals to demand “separate structures”. It’s hard to avoid concluding that they’re only demanding them now because they think they have the blocking minority required to halt full recognition of same-sex love and can hold the rest of the church hostage.
I’m opposed to the current direction of LLF – it’s timid and refuses to accept that same-sex couples are called to marry just as opposite sex couples are. I have come to the settled position, however, that discrimination against gay and trans people is inherently homophobic and transphobic. Using “same sex attracted” is itself an enormous homophobic red flag.
How anyone chooses to identify themselves is their business though I would assume, barring indications otherwise, that the person was a conservative evangelical actively engaged in suppressing their sexuality.
A phobia is something we experience ourselves, within us. It is the demonstration of that irrational fear that others observe. I can assure you I am not phobic (have an irrational fear or aversion) of those who have a different sexual orientation to me. If you were to get to know me well and disagree because of what you observe fair enough but I dont think Im waving a red flag furiously.
Holding to the Church of England’s teaching on marriage, as stated in the Prayer Book, and re-affirmed by Synod, does not make them “schismatic fundamentalists”.
The donation of the bride by her father to the groom as though she was a sack of spuds in BCP marriage fashion does beg some serious questions. And do you really believe that marriage was instituted so that those who have not the gift of continency might marry and keep themselves undefiled. It sounds about as sensible as blind eyes being turned on soldiers’ brothels near the front line in WW1 because such establishments helped soldiers resist the terrible sin of masturbation. However the latter would have caused fewer men to be out of action because of venereal disease.… Read more »
“I should like balls infinitely better,’ she replied, ‘if they were carried on in a different manner; but there is something insufferably tedious in the usual process of such a meeting. It would surely be much more rational if conversation instead of dancing were made the order of the day.’ ‘Much more rational, my dear Caroline, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a ball.”
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
dr.primrose
4 months ago
A couple of comments about The Church Mouse’s comments about the election of TEC bishops. TCM says: “In the US, … the clergy of the diocese vote in what is essentially an open election.” I’m not quite sure what TCM means by “an open election.” The process varies a bit from diocese to diocese. But the process is basically this: The diocese appoints a search committee, which is in charge of finding several nominees that it believes would be appropriate for the diocese. This includes sifting through names, interviews, and performing background checks. The names are then released (generally 3-5)… Read more »
Too old to genuflect
4 months ago
Theo Hobson’s piece seems measured and honest to me!
Messing around with the theology of priesthood and Eucharist seems far more destructive than ‘new thinking’ on the ‘doctrine of marriage”. Marriage is about humans do and humans have always done it in developing diverse ways. It was not invented by the Church whereas priesthood and Eucharist are specifically ‘of the Church’.
I now await the landslip of rocks which will fall on my head from some of the familiar commentators on Thinking Anglicans. Fiat.
I stand with Theo.
As you say the priesthood and Eucharist are invented by the church. If you believe in the priesthood of all believers and translate ‘bishop’ as ‘overseer’ and ‘church’ as ‘congregation’, the C of E would cease to exist. So it is a testament to the perceived power or lack of power of the bishops, in the case of Blackburn, that it continues as it does. Its power rests with the liturgy rather than with God, and simply change or add a few words here and there and it becomes something entirely different, such as with Holy Matrimony, Eucharist , Ordination,… Read more »
If you’re suggesting that the Eucharist as we know and practice it today is exactly as it was at the Last Supper, then we should be using ordinary unleavened bread, kosher wine, and sitting (or reclining which was more the custom in the First Century) around a table, not standing or kneeling at a railing.
Further, that whole speech (or the many versions of it in the BCP) would be unnecessary.
The Eucharist is the gift of Christ to his Church.
It is ‘of the Church’ which is the Body of Christ.
What I said was that marriage was not invented by the Church.
God is active in the liturgy, prayer, the love of the people of God in their response to issues of social justice and above all in the seven sacraments.
Adrian, I’m curious to know who you think the ‘you’ is in 1 Peter 2.9: ‘But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.’
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Both priest and bishop derive through greek and Latin from words meaning elder or overseer. i.e. people chosen from among the community to lead the community. I would argue that apostle means messenger, i.e. those appointed by Jesus to go out and preach and teach and heal. Bearing in mind that, according to multiple gospel witnesses, Jesus specifically instructed these people to keep moving, and to live in poverty, one wonders whether it is appropriate to link these with bishops, who live in a palace and have a geographically fixed authority and responsibility. Surely the successors… Read more »
But I suspect that presbyters in NT times functioned more like a cross between a vestry (=PCC) member and a lay reader (=LLM) than a full-time seminary-trained priest, as we now know them. Yes, the name has been passed down (somewhat altered), but the function is very different. Plus, even in small churches in Acts they’re always referred to in the plural.
There was a ‘silent gap’ in the record and we do not really know how episcopacy per se and ministerial priesthood developed from the NT period.
Suspecting won’t really cut it.
Sorry if I came in a bit strong, but I have always been fascinated by the balance in this period between the householder and mendicant traditions. There are some contemporary, non Judao/Christian reports about town-dwelling mendicants from a bit further east which match almost exactly what Jesus instructed his mendicant messengers (apostles) when he sent them out on their missions. According to Gospel witness, these people were instructed to have a discipline of poverty, constant movement from place to place, refusal to claim authority over anybody, and celibacy. This was a well understood tradition, and not just Jesus’ invention. Yet… Read more »
“…what changed things in that gap is a very interesting question….”
What changed things is undoubtedly the “Romanization” of Christianity as it became the dominant and imperially required religion. The Empire was ruled by a strict hierarchy and its official religion came to be as well.
Many bishops were in place before Constantine, but after Constantine they were much more willing and able to leverage imperial power, and to enforce compliance with Christian precepts through brute force. Which is the basis of my “apostolic” puzzlement.
I think you are absolutely correct Pat. One can debate the details, but certainly the interaction with Roman state power is a relevant issue. But contemporary records indicate it was the bishops grabbing power rather than the Emperor giving it that drove the issue. But for me it is the theology and ecclesiology that is the question rather than the politics. For a Bishop to claim almost absolute power derived from Apostolic succession or Christ’s teaching is surely a contradiction in terms. I don’t have a degree in theology, but it does seem jarring. This issue interests me not because… Read more »
Professional historians seek to avoid simplifications like: “undoubtedly the “Romanization.” All would have been much easier if Christianity just stayed in its fledgling form as the NT shows it. A Christianity stretching from northern Africa to the British Isles is not on its horizon, except as the plans of God and the Holy Spirit.
Well, not more relevant to Adrian’s dissing of the basic reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.
Last edited 4 months ago by Tim Chesterton
dr.primrose
4 months ago
After I posted my previous comment, I realized that I had forgotten to include an important step in connection with the election of TEC bishops. After the diocese has elected someone, the election must be approved by both a majority of diocesan bishops and a majority of diocesan standing committees (which are composed of both clergy and laity). If the election occurs fairly soon before the meeting of the triennial General Convention, the election must be approved by General Convention (which includes bishops, clergy and laity).
In Canada there are slight variations because the election of a bishop is governed by the canons of the specific ecclesiastical province in which the diocese in question is located. But yes, there’s a search committee appointed, a diocesan profile is produced, and then nominations are invited. The nominees don’t do the local meetings as in the TEC process described by Dr. Primrose, but information about them is circulated to the delegates to the electoral synod. All clergy holding the bishop’s licence are entitled to vote at the synod, as well as the elected people’s wardens from each congregation, and… Read more »
How often is an election not approved? This sounds like the more likely reason for a lack of diversity as the bishops can effectively blackball someone ‘not like us’.
It happened recently in the Diocese of Florida. But your basic premise stands. The consents process can effectively make TEC monochrome at the diocesan level. TN and Dallas will not be far off to go through this exercise. They are the last two bishops of the traditional TEC persuasion. (In FL, the candidate agreed to the TEC position re Bishops coming in to do same-sex marriages; that still didn’t fly). It isn’t other bishops only giving consent, but dioceses through standing committees. There are so many TEC dioceses, it is easier to get the votes refusing consent up to the… Read more »
I’ve been a parish representative at electoral synods in a diocese in ACANZP and they were well run and it felt like the candidates elected reflected the needs and mind of the diocese at that time. There is the famous case of the House of Bishops declining to ratify the election of Paul Ostreicher as Bishop of Wellington in 1985 because they said he was a Quaker as well as an Anglican. Prior to that, Francis Foulkes, principal of St John’s Theological College, was approached to stand for Bishop of Wellington. Francis declined, saying he did not sense it was… Read more »
Sounds great. TEC gave up on that idea at the diocesan level. I suspect that what will happen is that conservatives will be OK at the parish level. Big churches like Incarnation Dallas, St George’s Nashville, St John the Divine Houston are thriving and their parish shares keep the diocese going. They will have to decide what life will be like if a Bishop in the traditional ambit is chosen and then not consented to. FL was more of a mixed economy, and yet even there, solid liberals defended the right to be led by the conservative chosen. How Dallas… Read more »
The failure of a bishop-elect in TEC to obtain the necessary consents from a majority of diocesan bishops and a majority of diocesan standing committees does not happen very often. The last I’m aware of was in 2023 when Charlie Holt failed to receive the necessary consents to be bishop of Florida. That situation was a protracted mess. The Diocese of Florida is generally considered a “conservative” diocese but there is a significant “liberal” element there as well and the election seemed to be part of an on-going diocesan civil war. Holt was initially elected on the first ballot in… Read more »
Liberals in FL stoutly defended Holt. Others didn’t. It was a national standing committee referendum on Holt and his predecessor. And the issue was same-sex marriage. They want the present policy to time out, as is clear from the battles over the character of the BCP.
The days of laissez-faire for liberals and conservatives alike has passed. TEC is determined to represent itself as the progressive, liturgically with-it alternative to other old line churches.
Sorry, what’s more complicated than that? In general, your point regarding laissez-faire bespeaks a TEC I grew up in. Is there any genuine doubt that the TEC of ‘parties’ (liberal, anglo-catholic, evangelical) is over? I ask you seriously. TEC is robustly, across the board, progressive. What remains–if that is what the Court of Review document slogs through–are the final innings of a situation where 2% of the dioceses are (what label are we using?) conservative, 1979 BCP dioceses. The only question is whether they remain. I welcome your contribution that says otherwise. CFL, TN, Dallas. And everyone else. And for… Read more »
I understand Tim. When you and others reflexively use acronyms I don’t understand, I simply try to figure them out. Perhaps that comes from having lived in different Anglican contexts (including Canada). In the context of discussions about FL, CFL would be Central Florida. Blessings.
I did actually try to figure it out. Google wasn’t much help. I don’t believe I have ever used acronyms for diocesan names on Thinking Anglicans. I’ve always assumed that was an insiders’ game. By the way (which i often write as ‘BTW’!), the acronym ‘TEC’ was very confusing for a while because there was a long-standing and highly successful Anglican youth movement called ‘Teens Encounter Christ’ that also used the initials TEC—long before ECUSA co-opted them! In the Mennonite world in Canada, an even bigger confusion is MCC, which can mean ‘Mennonite Church Canada’ (the former Canadian branch of… Read more »
Is not the missing part of this narrative the decision by a large chunk of conservatives to storm off in a huff because not everyone was willing to go along with treating gay people badly any more? It’s kind of inevitable that when one “party” tries to take its ball and go home that the other party will become dominant.
Thank you. There were twenty two conservative bishops who met regularly during the tenure of +Rowan Williams, He communicated with them and +Winchester and +Gomez were frequently present at their gatherings. Two of those left. Two. The others retired in time due to age, and the situation in TEC was coming to where we have it now. They did not “storm off in a huff” and indeed chastised those who did. It is also inconvenient to remember that the Presiding Bishop at the time used a canon concerning prelates formally wanting to renounce their orders, in writing, to simply renounce… Read more »
The covenant was an attempt to allow conservatives to enforce their views across the Anglican Communion, and it is an abiding shame that ++Rowan was so focussed on unity that he was willing to accept it and throw our LGBT brothers and sisters under the bus in the process. It’s rejection was a moment of hope for the CofE, and it is unfortunate that ++Rowan was replaced by another man intent on placating homophobes.
That is fine as your opinion. It isn’t what your comment suggested and to which I responded.
And if I may be allowed a correction. It was all clergy — not just bishops — removed from their Orders at a stroke. Fortunately, the CofE never recongized any of that nonsense. I think of Henry Scriven, who returned to England, ‘un-renounced.’
Unless I read it incorrectly, the group Jo B describes as “storming off in a huff” are not a couple of bishops, but entire dioceses that chose to join ACNA,
Of the 22 Bishops I refer to, which ones ‘stormed off in a huff’ please? RI, CFL, Dallas, SWFL, Albany, WLA, SC (Ed Salmon was diocesan), TN, Eau Claire, FL, SWTX, Rio Grande, et al. Help me here with ‘entire dioceses.’ I can think of Iker in Ft Worth (TX courts gave him his diocese free and clear, and the TEC remnant lost; he didn’t go off in a huff but as a victor), and Duncan (he left on his own; his successor, Dorsey McConnell) tried very amicably to keep the diocese of Pittsburgh from collapsing entirely). The rest stayed… Read more »
Yes, I was talking about church members, not bishops particularly. If a large chunk of one “party” leaves then necessarily the balance of the church will shift.
Richard Grand
4 months ago
Conservatives trying to occupy the high ground on what is considered “orthodox” is an exercise in arrogance and hypocrisy. Having been through this exercise in Canada, it was annoying and offensive when certain individuals, notably those who would eschew Catholic Creeds and Orders, would claim to be “orthodox” solely due to their view of homosexuality and fundamentalism re scripture. They ignore the fact that the Greek means “right praise” (if they want to be literalists,) and define it as “right belief.” The fact that their exclusivism defines everyone else as heretics does not concern them. In fact, it gives them… Read more »
Richard Grand
4 months ago
Note that defining other Anglicans as agnostics is as offensive as any other attempt at name-calling and casting aspersions among Christians. Calling others by any label is never accurate or helpful and is a poor witness. Your labels say more about you than those you think you’re describing.
‘The Church of England is a device for allowing agnostics to remain in the church’. Sir Humphrey, as so often, is quite right.
If there were more agnostics in the Church there would be less trouble and division. It’s the “Christians’ who read the bible and then hate each other who are the problem.
Thank you.
I assume you are are referring to those who call their fellow Christians “homophobes” and “transphobes”, and threaten them will legal action because of their deeply held, prayerfully considered and theologically based views.
Segregationists’ views were “deeply held, prayerfully considered and theologically based”. Their views and actions were still racist, and it wasn’t hate to point it out. The same applies to modern homophobia and transphobia.
Those holding to the orthodox teaching of the Church of England are not racist! Nor is holding to such teaching homophobic or transphobic! This doesn’t change not matter how many times you state it. A phobia is an irrational fear.
Please desist from claiming orthodoxy for a mere section of the CofE. We have always been a church which manages different traditions. The new wave of mud slinging is highly unedifying. Others might think the Conevos far from ‘orthodox’.
Orthodox: following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion. On that basis the current Church of England teaching on marriage is orthodox. This is teaching is held to by far more people than just the conservative evangelicals.
Orthodox comes from two greek words Orthos and doxos….meaning right and opinion.
It has nothing to do with some sort of majority first past the post.
It is a claim to be right….and therefore others to be wrong.
That is arrogant.
But the current usage of the word orthodox according to the Oxford Dictionary “generally accepted or approved of or following generally accepted beliefs” So I think it fair to say historically that the Church of Englands teaching on marriage has thus far been seen as orthodox. However in the current climate is anything still orthodox in that there is such diversity and dichotomy in “generally accepted beliefs”? However it doesn’t seem unreasonable to apply orthodox to what has been historically the position of the church and still adhered to be by a large section of the Church of England, including… Read more »
Well said Simon.
That’s a new one. In Greek, Orthodox means “right praise,” not “right opinion.”
“dox” means both opinion and praise, cf. orthodox | Etymology of orthodox by etymonline
You are right, however in Greek, although orthos doxos means ‘right worship’ it can also have connotations of ‘right opinion’. Either can be right in particular circumstances or contexts.
It would be good if some our enthusiasts for personal rectitude and the right to proclaim solely their point of view as orthodox could realise that in the grey areas of theology both points of view can be both right and orthodox.
We all have our phobias be it spiders or heights or whatever. We could add conevophobia and happyclappyphobia to the list! Jesus came to draw us away from our phobias into a place of absolute trust in Him. I have come to the settled position in the last 3 years that it is perfectly possible to be opposed to the current direction of LLF and not be homophobic or transphobic. Im certainly not phobic (have an irrational fear) of same sex attracted people or those who have transitioned.
“Im certainly not phobic (have an irrational fear) of same sex attracted people or those who have transitioned.”
But you are unwilling to share a pew with them, apparently. What word would you use to describe that?
Opposing PLF or the direction of travel of LLF does not mean that I am unwilling to share a pew with anyone. Do you ask someone about their gender, preferred pronouns or sexuality before sitting next to them? I don’t! Nor do I ask if they are a murderer, thief, adulterer, gossip etc.
But if you know their gender, etc. before hand are you willing to have them in your church?
Yes
I think Pat you are making a huge assumption here. I worship in a church who has had trans and same sex attracted people in it for many years and have sat next to them on many occasions!
The issue here is not sharing the pew with SSA people or any sinners (we are all sinners) but whether the Christian doctrine allows blessings of SS relationships. There are two settled positions in SSA/SSM and both going in opposite directions. You could argue this is not a serious difference to fall out on but then what else will we not agree on in future. Can Jesus be so different to different people?
We already disagree on whether women can be ordained or whether divorcees can remarry during the lifetime of their former spouse. Neither issue (despite resting on stronger Biblical warrant than opposition to equal marriage) has been deemed by evangelicals to demand “separate structures”. It’s hard to avoid concluding that they’re only demanding them now because they think they have the blocking minority required to halt full recognition of same-sex love and can hold the rest of the church hostage.
I’m opposed to the current direction of LLF – it’s timid and refuses to accept that same-sex couples are called to marry just as opposite sex couples are. I have come to the settled position, however, that discrimination against gay and trans people is inherently homophobic and transphobic. Using “same sex attracted” is itself an enormous homophobic red flag.
So what would you say to a person who prefers to be called same sex attracted rather than gay or queer?
How anyone chooses to identify themselves is their business though I would assume, barring indications otherwise, that the person was a conservative evangelical actively engaged in suppressing their sexuality.
A phobia is something we experience ourselves, within us. It is the demonstration of that irrational fear that others observe. I can assure you I am not phobic (have an irrational fear or aversion) of those who have a different sexual orientation to me. If you were to get to know me well and disagree because of what you observe fair enough but I dont think Im waving a red flag furiously.
No. I’m referring to the schismatic fundamentalists whose reading of the bible gives them a sense of self-righteousness.
Holding to the Church of England’s teaching on marriage, as stated in the Prayer Book, and re-affirmed by Synod, does not make them “schismatic fundamentalists”.
The donation of the bride by her father to the groom as though she was a sack of spuds in BCP marriage fashion does beg some serious questions. And do you really believe that marriage was instituted so that those who have not the gift of continency might marry and keep themselves undefiled. It sounds about as sensible as blind eyes being turned on soldiers’ brothels near the front line in WW1 because such establishments helped soldiers resist the terrible sin of masturbation. However the latter would have caused fewer men to be out of action because of venereal disease.… Read more »
Is there a typo or two there? Should it read…
“Yes. I’m referring to the schismatic liberals whose reading of the bible gives them a sense of self-righteousness.”
“mirror, mirror on the wall…”
I can’t get my head around your venom. Still, lesson to self… It’s not worth the effort. Enjoy your trench but, me, I prefer sunshine.
Jesus may want you for a sunbeam but homophobia never saved anyone.
The national assembly hall, full of agnostics, a sort of English club with nice buildings (for the most part).
“I should like balls infinitely better,’ she replied, ‘if they were carried on in a different manner; but there is something insufferably tedious in the usual process of such a meeting. It would surely be much more rational if conversation instead of dancing were made the order of the day.’
‘Much more rational, my dear Caroline, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a ball.”
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
A couple of comments about The Church Mouse’s comments about the election of TEC bishops. TCM says: “In the US, … the clergy of the diocese vote in what is essentially an open election.” I’m not quite sure what TCM means by “an open election.” The process varies a bit from diocese to diocese. But the process is basically this: The diocese appoints a search committee, which is in charge of finding several nominees that it believes would be appropriate for the diocese. This includes sifting through names, interviews, and performing background checks. The names are then released (generally 3-5)… Read more »
Theo Hobson’s piece seems measured and honest to me!
Messing around with the theology of priesthood and Eucharist seems far more destructive than ‘new thinking’ on the ‘doctrine of marriage”. Marriage is about humans do and humans have always done it in developing diverse ways. It was not invented by the Church whereas priesthood and Eucharist are specifically ‘of the Church’.
I now await the landslip of rocks which will fall on my head from some of the familiar commentators on Thinking Anglicans. Fiat.
I stand with Theo.
As you say the priesthood and Eucharist are invented by the church. If you believe in the priesthood of all believers and translate ‘bishop’ as ‘overseer’ and ‘church’ as ‘congregation’, the C of E would cease to exist. So it is a testament to the perceived power or lack of power of the bishops, in the case of Blackburn, that it continues as it does. Its power rests with the liturgy rather than with God, and simply change or add a few words here and there and it becomes something entirely different, such as with Holy Matrimony, Eucharist , Ordination,… Read more »
The Eucharist is invented by the Church in the same way as Passover was invented by the Jews.
If you’re suggesting that the Eucharist as we know and practice it today is exactly as it was at the Last Supper, then we should be using ordinary unleavened bread, kosher wine, and sitting (or reclining which was more the custom in the First Century) around a table, not standing or kneeling at a railing.
Further, that whole speech (or the many versions of it in the BCP) would be unnecessary.
The Eucharist is the gift of Christ to his Church.
It is ‘of the Church’ which is the Body of Christ.
What I said was that marriage was not invented by the Church.
God is active in the liturgy, prayer, the love of the people of God in their response to issues of social justice and above all in the seven sacraments.
Hear hear
Adrian, I’m curious to know who you think the ‘you’ is in 1 Peter 2.9: ‘But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.’
Rather more relevant is what is meant by ‘presbyter’ and ‘apostle’.
Surely a presbyter is a priest and the bishop is the apostle.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Both priest and bishop derive through greek and Latin from words meaning elder or overseer. i.e. people chosen from among the community to lead the community. I would argue that apostle means messenger, i.e. those appointed by Jesus to go out and preach and teach and heal. Bearing in mind that, according to multiple gospel witnesses, Jesus specifically instructed these people to keep moving, and to live in poverty, one wonders whether it is appropriate to link these with bishops, who live in a palace and have a geographically fixed authority and responsibility. Surely the successors… Read more »
Indeed. I too have a degree in theology.
In truth I was being a bit provocative!
We really cannot be too specific about these things though.
But I suspect that presbyters in NT times functioned more like a cross between a vestry (=PCC) member and a lay reader (=LLM) than a full-time seminary-trained priest, as we now know them. Yes, the name has been passed down (somewhat altered), but the function is very different. Plus, even in small churches in Acts they’re always referred to in the plural.
There was a ‘silent gap’ in the record and we do not really know how episcopacy per se and ministerial priesthood developed from the NT period.
Suspecting won’t really cut it.
Sorry if I came in a bit strong, but I have always been fascinated by the balance in this period between the householder and mendicant traditions. There are some contemporary, non Judao/Christian reports about town-dwelling mendicants from a bit further east which match almost exactly what Jesus instructed his mendicant messengers (apostles) when he sent them out on their missions. According to Gospel witness, these people were instructed to have a discipline of poverty, constant movement from place to place, refusal to claim authority over anybody, and celibacy. This was a well understood tradition, and not just Jesus’ invention. Yet… Read more »
“…what changed things in that gap is a very interesting question….”
What changed things is undoubtedly the “Romanization” of Christianity as it became the dominant and imperially required religion. The Empire was ruled by a strict hierarchy and its official religion came to be as well.
Except that the bishops and their sees predate widespread adoption of Christianity in and by the empire.
That’s my understanding.
Many bishops were in place before Constantine, but after Constantine they were much more willing and able to leverage imperial power, and to enforce compliance with Christian precepts through brute force. Which is the basis of my “apostolic” puzzlement.
I think you are absolutely correct Pat. One can debate the details, but certainly the interaction with Roman state power is a relevant issue. But contemporary records indicate it was the bishops grabbing power rather than the Emperor giving it that drove the issue. But for me it is the theology and ecclesiology that is the question rather than the politics. For a Bishop to claim almost absolute power derived from Apostolic succession or Christ’s teaching is surely a contradiction in terms. I don’t have a degree in theology, but it does seem jarring. This issue interests me not because… Read more »
Professional historians seek to avoid simplifications like: “undoubtedly the “Romanization.” All would have been much easier if Christianity just stayed in its fledgling form as the NT shows it. A Christianity stretching from northern Africa to the British Isles is not on its horizon, except as the plans of God and the Holy Spirit.
Well, not more relevant to Adrian’s dissing of the basic reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.
After I posted my previous comment, I realized that I had forgotten to include an important step in connection with the election of TEC bishops. After the diocese has elected someone, the election must be approved by both a majority of diocesan bishops and a majority of diocesan standing committees (which are composed of both clergy and laity). If the election occurs fairly soon before the meeting of the triennial General Convention, the election must be approved by General Convention (which includes bishops, clergy and laity).
In Canada there are slight variations because the election of a bishop is governed by the canons of the specific ecclesiastical province in which the diocese in question is located. But yes, there’s a search committee appointed, a diocesan profile is produced, and then nominations are invited. The nominees don’t do the local meetings as in the TEC process described by Dr. Primrose, but information about them is circulated to the delegates to the electoral synod. All clergy holding the bishop’s licence are entitled to vote at the synod, as well as the elected people’s wardens from each congregation, and… Read more »
How often is an election not approved? This sounds like the more likely reason for a lack of diversity as the bishops can effectively blackball someone ‘not like us’.
It happened to Charlie Rose (?), elected Bishop of Central Florida, IIRC.
It happened recently in the Diocese of Florida. But your basic premise stands. The consents process can effectively make TEC monochrome at the diocesan level. TN and Dallas will not be far off to go through this exercise. They are the last two bishops of the traditional TEC persuasion. (In FL, the candidate agreed to the TEC position re Bishops coming in to do same-sex marriages; that still didn’t fly). It isn’t other bishops only giving consent, but dioceses through standing committees. There are so many TEC dioceses, it is easier to get the votes refusing consent up to the… Read more »
I’ve been a parish representative at electoral synods in a diocese in ACANZP and they were well run and it felt like the candidates elected reflected the needs and mind of the diocese at that time. There is the famous case of the House of Bishops declining to ratify the election of Paul Ostreicher as Bishop of Wellington in 1985 because they said he was a Quaker as well as an Anglican. Prior to that, Francis Foulkes, principal of St John’s Theological College, was approached to stand for Bishop of Wellington. Francis declined, saying he did not sense it was… Read more »
Sounds great. TEC gave up on that idea at the diocesan level. I suspect that what will happen is that conservatives will be OK at the parish level. Big churches like Incarnation Dallas, St George’s Nashville, St John the Divine Houston are thriving and their parish shares keep the diocese going. They will have to decide what life will be like if a Bishop in the traditional ambit is chosen and then not consented to. FL was more of a mixed economy, and yet even there, solid liberals defended the right to be led by the conservative chosen. How Dallas… Read more »
The failure of a bishop-elect in TEC to obtain the necessary consents from a majority of diocesan bishops and a majority of diocesan standing committees does not happen very often. The last I’m aware of was in 2023 when Charlie Holt failed to receive the necessary consents to be bishop of Florida. That situation was a protracted mess. The Diocese of Florida is generally considered a “conservative” diocese but there is a significant “liberal” element there as well and the election seemed to be part of an on-going diocesan civil war. Holt was initially elected on the first ballot in… Read more »
We shall see in TN and in Dallas.
Liberals in FL stoutly defended Holt. Others didn’t. It was a national standing committee referendum on Holt and his predecessor. And the issue was same-sex marriage. They want the present policy to time out, as is clear from the battles over the character of the BCP.
The days of laissez-faire for liberals and conservatives alike has passed. TEC is determined to represent itself as the progressive, liturgically with-it alternative to other old line churches.
It was a bit more complicated than that. Here’s is the report of the Court of Review for anyone who wants to slog through all 189 pages. https://www.diocesefl.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/English-Findings-of-the-Court-with-Exhibits.pdf
Sorry, what’s more complicated than that? In general, your point regarding laissez-faire bespeaks a TEC I grew up in. Is there any genuine doubt that the TEC of ‘parties’ (liberal, anglo-catholic, evangelical) is over? I ask you seriously. TEC is robustly, across the board, progressive. What remains–if that is what the Court of Review document slogs through–are the final innings of a situation where 2% of the dioceses are (what label are we using?) conservative, 1979 BCP dioceses. The only question is whether they remain. I welcome your contribution that says otherwise. CFL, TN, Dallas. And everyone else. And for… Read more »
I understood TEC, BCP, and TN, but to me, CFL stands for Canadian Football League.
Seriously, please remember that not every contributor here understands US state acronyms (if that’s what it is?).
I understand Tim. When you and others reflexively use acronyms I don’t understand, I simply try to figure them out. Perhaps that comes from having lived in different Anglican contexts (including Canada). In the context of discussions about FL, CFL would be Central Florida. Blessings.
I did actually try to figure it out. Google wasn’t much help. I don’t believe I have ever used acronyms for diocesan names on Thinking Anglicans. I’ve always assumed that was an insiders’ game. By the way (which i often write as ‘BTW’!), the acronym ‘TEC’ was very confusing for a while because there was a long-standing and highly successful Anglican youth movement called ‘Teens Encounter Christ’ that also used the initials TEC—long before ECUSA co-opted them! In the Mennonite world in Canada, an even bigger confusion is MCC, which can mean ‘Mennonite Church Canada’ (the former Canadian branch of… Read more »
Is not the missing part of this narrative the decision by a large chunk of conservatives to storm off in a huff because not everyone was willing to go along with treating gay people badly any more? It’s kind of inevitable that when one “party” tries to take its ball and go home that the other party will become dominant.
Thank you. There were twenty two conservative bishops who met regularly during the tenure of +Rowan Williams, He communicated with them and +Winchester and +Gomez were frequently present at their gatherings. Two of those left. Two. The others retired in time due to age, and the situation in TEC was coming to where we have it now. They did not “storm off in a huff” and indeed chastised those who did. It is also inconvenient to remember that the Presiding Bishop at the time used a canon concerning prelates formally wanting to renounce their orders, in writing, to simply renounce… Read more »
The covenant was an attempt to allow conservatives to enforce their views across the Anglican Communion, and it is an abiding shame that ++Rowan was so focussed on unity that he was willing to accept it and throw our LGBT brothers and sisters under the bus in the process. It’s rejection was a moment of hope for the CofE, and it is unfortunate that ++Rowan was replaced by another man intent on placating homophobes.
That is fine as your opinion. It isn’t what your comment suggested and to which I responded.
And if I may be allowed a correction. It was all clergy — not just bishops — removed from their Orders at a stroke. Fortunately, the CofE never recongized any of that nonsense. I think of Henry Scriven, who returned to England, ‘un-renounced.’
Unless I read it incorrectly, the group Jo B describes as “storming off in a huff” are not a couple of bishops, but entire dioceses that chose to join ACNA,
Of the 22 Bishops I refer to, which ones ‘stormed off in a huff’ please? RI, CFL, Dallas, SWFL, Albany, WLA, SC (Ed Salmon was diocesan), TN, Eau Claire, FL, SWTX, Rio Grande, et al. Help me here with ‘entire dioceses.’ I can think of Iker in Ft Worth (TX courts gave him his diocese free and clear, and the TEC remnant lost; he didn’t go off in a huff but as a victor), and Duncan (he left on his own; his successor, Dorsey McConnell) tried very amicably to keep the diocese of Pittsburgh from collapsing entirely). The rest stayed… Read more »
Yes, I was talking about church members, not bishops particularly. If a large chunk of one “party” leaves then necessarily the balance of the church will shift.
Conservatives trying to occupy the high ground on what is considered “orthodox” is an exercise in arrogance and hypocrisy. Having been through this exercise in Canada, it was annoying and offensive when certain individuals, notably those who would eschew Catholic Creeds and Orders, would claim to be “orthodox” solely due to their view of homosexuality and fundamentalism re scripture. They ignore the fact that the Greek means “right praise” (if they want to be literalists,) and define it as “right belief.” The fact that their exclusivism defines everyone else as heretics does not concern them. In fact, it gives them… Read more »
Note that defining other Anglicans as agnostics is as offensive as any other attempt at name-calling and casting aspersions among Christians. Calling others by any label is never accurate or helpful and is a poor witness. Your labels say more about you than those you think you’re describing.