Eleanor Jackson British Library Medieval manuscripts blog Chi-rho pages for Christmas
Catriona Cannon and Irene-Marie Esser Law & Religion UK What has Religion got to do with “Corporate Purpose”?
LGBTQ Faith UK Rediscovering the purpose of church
Martine Oborne ViaMedia.News The Sexism Women Continue to Face in the Church of England
“Rediscovering the purpose of church” article ends by suggesting that we take a fresh look at out purpose. I believe the purpose of the church has been adequately described in the Five Marks of Mission. Namely:
To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
To respond to human need by loving service
To seek to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and to pursue peace and reconciliation
To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/mission/fivemarks.cfm
I’m pleased to see that Martine Oborne affirms same-sex relationships*, but if she’s quoted accurately in the link, she sympathizes with Canterbury struggling to hold together a church with diametrically opposed views.
How is this materially different from the 2014 compromise, and won’t removing that compromise make traditionalists far less likely to agree to toleration in other areas?
* https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/archbishop-says-gay-sex-a-sin-what-do-chiswick-vicars-think/
Martine Oborne cites people who go “on about the female vicar of their local village church and how everything has gone downhill since she arrived”. Around here a female priest is in charge of seven parishes where there will be no Christmas Day services “because no one will turn up“. I’m aware of another woman vicar who abolished Remembrance Day services because “they wouldn’t appeal to youth who are too young to remember”. She has also alienated many life-long faithful people who have stopped attending.. Her female predecessor used the High Altar as a storage area piled high with robes… Read more »
“Innovation” is certainly gender-neutral: when, in the ’70s, England saw it begin in earnest, to the CoE’s enduring shame — given that it’d already accepted that there was no theological bar to equal ordination — it’d yet to open the priesthood to half the people.
Perhaps if a sincere apology were offered to the generation of women so cruelly denied, by the surviving bishops who denied them, alongside tangible compensation, toleration for traditionalists would have greater acceptance?
To single out examples of poorly behaved women Priests and then throw us the slight apology “it is entirely conceivable that male clergy are as capable of such crass behaviour..” verges on sexism. Why after all these years are we still singling out women Priests as somehow flawed. Like the male Clergy there are very many brilliant examples. Mind you, I am biased as I’m married to one.
I don’t think there’s anything ‘verging’ about it, it’s naked sexism. When a female priest does something ill advised or plain wrong, it’s because she’s a woman and reflects on all female priests. When a male priest does the same, it’s one priest doing something wrong or ill advised.
Thank you and spot on!
It’s how minorities and majorities have always been treated.
I would cite Bishop Peter Ball as being “flawed”. Does that make me “sexist” with regard to male clergy?
Continuing to use the title ‘Bishop’ for the convicted serial sex offender P. Ball is not a good look.
‘Bishop’ is not a title, but part of the three-fold ministry. Ball wasn’t de-consecrated when he was imprisoned in disgrace.
Indeed, for a time after release he had PTO, but wasn’t allowed to confirm or ordain. I have read that he was considering transferring to the RC church, but not sure whether that happened.
I cannot believe for one moment that Peter Ball had PTO after his release from prison.
Apologies. That was the situation after his resignation as bishop in 1993 following police cautions. The then DPP decided not to prosecute. He was granted PTO from 2001 to 2010, with the limitations on confirmation and ordination, and (according to Wikipedia) he did indeed continue to officiate. Wasn’t there some suggestion, as I recall, that in relation to confirmations he exceeded this authority even then? There was a significant gap of 21 years before the State prosecuted him, based on further evidence, the decision taken in 2014 and the trial with conviction and imprisonment followed one year later.
To the fury of laity like me officially he did indeed remain a bishop – indelible character of a priest or some such excuse. However, continuing to refer to him as a bishop is pedantry which only serves to remind us laity how badly the CofE handled the whole Ball affair, & how much he was shielded by the likes of Eric Kemp. Actually it also serves as an uncomfortable reminder of what a shambles the CofE is still making of safeguarding by keeping it in-house, despite much righteous wringing of hands, endless reports, and much expenditure of money.
When the theory of church order meets the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of sin wins every time.
Describing Peter Ball as ‘flawed’ is as gross an understatement as Prince Andrew’s description of Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct as ‘unbecoming’. It dishonours Ball’s victims, who are still suffering from the effects of his abuse.
Father, there’s an illustration in Pugin’s Contrasts of a sanctuary just as you describe complete with stove and stove pipe through the east window, set alongside a sanctuary of his idealised mediaeval catholicism. I can’t find it on google. The Catholics’ interpretation of Vatican 2 didn’t help, and neither does seeing HC as a snack with mates (“supper with his friends” as Common Worship Eucharistic Prayer E has it – Ye Gods, not so much common as crass) as opposed to a re-enactment of the ultimate cosmic drama. But what do I know? What puts people off going to church?… Read more »
In the Diocese of Christchurch, in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the Anglican Church could not operate without the ministry of women priests – most of whom are faithful and energetic and, above all, inclusive in their pastoral caring for ALL people. Of course, we in N.Z. were early in our understanding that priests can be female as well as male – subject to the commonality of our human nature, which, when harnessed, can be pure Gospel. I just thank God for our clergy – whether female or male.
And Bishop Penny Jamieson (VII Dunedin) was the first female diocesan in the Anglican Communion. N.Z. should be very proud of that.
As one of the first women to be ordained, the pressure to be ‘perfect’ was enormous. We knew that any mistake we made would reflect on all ordained women and the whole cause of women’s ordination. It was a difficult burden to carry; expectations of all clergy are already daunting.
Perhaps I am missing the point but I am nevertheless intrigued by the current use of language to describe what I have always understood to be priests. Nowadays it seems to be the mode to speak of ‘ministers’ and ‘vicars’. I have been a priest for fifty years and have never been a vicar. In my experience we are often generically referred to as ‘vicars’ by Roman Catholics who cannot bring themselves to call us priests for fear that they might signal that we are ‘the real thing’. I would suggest that women priests should be pleased to call themselves… Read more »
Personally, I believe I’ve been a member of the royal priesthood since the day I was baptized on December 28th 1958. ‘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.’
Bless your cotton socks, but you are missing my point.
Well, that’s a rather patronising way of delivering a put down! No, I am not missing your point; I’m directly addressing it. As Janet says, some of us don’t care for the language of ministerial priesthood because we see the danger (clearly demonstrated in the rampant clericalism of Anglicanism) of it eclipsing the priesthood of all believers. It’s not about ‘current use’; there’s a long and honorable history of it in our tradition, although it’s not fashionable in the largely liberal catholic Anglicanism of my own Anglican Church of Canada.
Friendly rather than patronising but my point was about the acceptance of women as priests. All baptised Christians are ministers and only a few priests are ‘vicars’.
Thank God for liberal catholicism.
The Book of Common Prayer refers in the rubrics to clergy as ‘ministers’; it’s a very old usage. Evangelicals are often reluctant to use the term ‘priest’ for theological reasons. The reasoning is that the priesthood was a feature of the Old Testament; with Jesus as our Great High Priest we have no need of an order of priests. As Tim says, all who follow Jesus are ‘a royal priesthood, a holy nation’. In the New Testament, church leaders are referred to as presbyters. In English ‘presbyter’ morphed into ‘prester’ and then into ‘priest’ – we can see that in… Read more »
The media tends to refer to all ordained ministers as ” a Reverend”. This is as absurd as calling someone like Boris Johnson “a Right Honourable”.
Let’s not blame ‘the media’ for that. I think we have to face the fact that our Anglican system of titles for ministers is hugely confusing to the secular world. They aren’t being intentionally stupid; they genuinely don’t know what to call people, and when we throw in titles like Canon or Archdeacon or Dean or whatever, it gets even more confusing. Especially in forms like ‘The Very Reverend’, ‘The Most Reverend,’ and so on. If we want to be understood, we need to work harder at being understandable. Especially in the modern world where people don’t have a lot… Read more »
I take your point entirely. I was referring more to the media’s ungrammatical use of the prefix “Reverend” being used as a Noun. It’s as daft as saying that Britain’s Head of State is “a Majesty”.
I agree, Tim, though it still grates when journalists, who ought to know better (assuming—wrongly, perhaps—that they have been properly trained at ‘media school’) use ‘reverend’ as a noun—as it does, for me, when they appear also not to know the difference between the correct titles and modes of address of a High Court judge and a circuit judge! That said, our former priest-in-charge was informally ‘the rector’ and happy to be called ‘Reverend Judith’. Pastorally, that was what mattered. ‘Vicar’ seems to be the standard (fall back) term used by the media for a minister of any denomination, so… Read more »
In my part of North America (western Canada) ‘vicar’ is unknown, most people don’t have a clue what a rector is, and if I say I’m a priest, most secular folk will assume I’m a Roman Catholic. For better or for worse, what seems to communicate best is for me to tell people that I’m the pastor of a church.
True, though Moberly the Lux Mundi liberal Catholic pioneered a non sacerdotal/ anglican understanding of “ministerial priesthood” which has found favour over a wide spectrum of anglican theology ( R.G.Fuller, Hanson Bros , Henry Chadwick etc )
I was ordained according to the BCP and ordained a priest.
I think the point is that the BCP uses both ‘priest’ and ‘minister’. So ‘minister’ isn’t some new-fangled way of speaking.
Again, That was not my point at all. Your comment is a statement of the obvious!
What was your point?
Perhaps you might re read my post.
Be warned, I do not hold a protestant evangelical point of view. I am a very dangerous liberal catholic!
I’ve read your post several times.
And I am not an evangelical, and don’t regard liberal catholics as at all dangerous.
Indeed. But I believe the BCP rubrics invariably use ‘priest’ in the context of any sacramental role which is reserved to a (fully-) ordained priest, e.g., consecration of the host and wine at Communion. There are similar distinctions in the C of E Canons.
The original point was that ‘current language’ tended to favour ‘minister’ or ‘vicar’. It wasn’t about who could or could not preside at the Eucharist. I can’t speak for Janet, but all I’m trying to establish is that such language is rooted in Anglican tradition every bit as much as priestly language. I’m not disputing the fact that the BCP rubrics and Anglican polity require an ordained priest to preside. But the truth of the matter is that for most of us, the ‘minister’ and ‘vicar’ (or in my case, ‘rector’) parts of our job description occupy more of our… Read more »
Thanks, Tim, that was my point too. The use of the term ‘minister’ is as old as the C of E.
As for BCP Holy Communion rubrics:
‘Then shall the Priest, turning to the people, rehearse distinctly all the Ten Commandments…
Minister. “Thou shalt not…”‘
That wasn’t my point either! I said ‘indeed’ which can only be interpreted as agreeing with you! Merely observing the historical duality of the BCP rubric, and my interpretation of why and when the differentiation occurs. Nothing whatsoever in my comment calls for this reaction.
We have done the course
In the Church of Scotland we have ‘ministers’. The official designation is the ‘Reverend John Smith’, or ‘Reverend Joan Smith’, unless you are the current Moderator of the General Assembly, in which case you are the Most Reverend. Past Moderators are Very Reverend. However, addressing a minister the correct term is ‘Mr Smith’ or ‘Mrs/Miss/Ms Smith’. As with the CoE, this causes complete confusion amongst everyone!
The word that has dropped out in my life time is ” parson”. You never seem to hear clergy called this now.
Laus Deo
Yes, I wonder why?
Possibly because Dickens has been dead awhile!
The term both predates and post-dates Dickens.
I quite like it – it doesn’t distinguish between deacon and priest, and is less clumsy than ‘parish priest’.
Well my aunt born 1909 , so post Dickens, always spoke of parsons. Coming from the word “person”I suppose it signals representative ministry and a place in the community, known by the churched and the unchurched, seen about involved in the community. So less appropriate for the sort of church that we now have probably.
I had an uncle who also always spoke of parsons. The late Lord Soper invariably referred to himself as a parson. I live in a country lane which on old maps led to ‘Parsonage Farm’. In the village where I was born and brought up there was a ‘Parson’s Mead’, then occupied by a boarding school. I’m not aware of any particular significance of Charles Dickens, but parsons crop up all over the place in Anthony Trollope’s ‘Barchester’ novels – including “The Parson’s Daughter of Oxney Colne”. Of course later there’s Kipling’s “Brandy for the Parson, baccy for the Clerk”. It may… Read more »
I suppose it’s bucolic associations don’t fit the way today’s Church likes to see itself. A few RCs still use it to avoid acknowledging that Anglicans can be priests. Speaking of which, I notice that the CofE’s comms still eschew priest in favour of ‘vicar’. And this at a time when confident-in-their-own-skin Evangelicals are quite happy to use the p word.
Although it’s not worth trying to bring parson back into usage because it sounds so old hat I’ve always found it a useful notion. The word ‘parson’ is related to the word ‘person’. The best parsons are those who are on their own authentic spiritual journey. And because ‘deep speaks to deep’ they are able to offer something genuine to those among whom they live. In an age of eclectic congregations governed by spreadsheets however I suspect that ‘parson’ isn’t just dated but possibly meaningless.
Hmmm. I’ve never met a parson but perhaps its worth resurrecting the style out here among the sticks. I looked it up in Wiki but, alas, the explanation given was even more dense that Our Rowland’s complicated contributions so I gave up. But I like the sound of it and so I’ll try it out on our “Our Julie” who’s the third member of the team of stipendiary clergy in our New Monster Benefice (officially called Pastrow) that cover some 16 churches. Her Reverence lives next door and doesn’t get time to read this site so I’m fairly safe. Besides which, she’s new… Read more »
Rediscovering the Purpose of Church…(reference to Christingles aside!) really warms my heart. As an academic but more importantly as a retired Priest of 44 years serving communities whether they be Parish, University or Cathedral, the ‘commonality ‘ of getting alongside those in ‘your’ care speaks volumes as in the above article, but it is a principle which seems to have been largely forgotten in many Parishes and institutions where priests are supposedly a part….and increasingly not a part. To be seen by, known by, valued by, by being involved in whatever community we care to mention surely must form the… Read more »