Not much going on in my mind right now. But John Richardson has been doing some thinking about his troubled Church of England and the two 'parties' within it most affected by the consequences of imminent legislation. An excerpt from the whole which is here:
"The Catholic movement did not get where it did by waiting for the Church to enact legislation to provide what it wanted. Yet today it has four dedicated bishops and a dozen or so sympathizers, hundreds of clergy, a multitude of buildings and a host of people. Why, then, is it so much on the back foot?
Now for the Evangelicals. Our problem is simply this: many of us don’t really want to be Church of England, and it shows. As a result, we’ve never organized ourselves to be an effective force within the institution. Instead, we’ve laughed at bishops and ploughed our own individual parish furrows. We’ve never had a vision for the Church of England, because we’ve never really had heart for it. Indeed, for some of us, the prospect of ‘ejection’ is greeted not with gloom but elation, confirming as it does all our prejudices."
A vision for one's church? Now there is a thought! We have a lot of emphasis (in my experience) on vision for one's own local church. Want to grow your church, o vicar? First of all, get a vision, speak it out and make it happen ... but that is always about the parish, scarcely about the diocese, let alone the whole shebang. John Richardson's challenge is to 'think big.'
It is not as though far away Down Under we have no need of that big encompassing vision ...
I think it does at the moment appear that the C of E is divided into two irreconcilable camps, but I wonder if that picture reflects reality? There are polarities of those who are liberal and "inclusive" and those who are traditional and deeply dismayed at the changes in attitude to women and gays which we are seeing. Many within these polarities are quite vocal, and that can give the impressio of deep divisions. These divisions do exist, but many in the mainstream are not that exercised on these issues and don't see them as communion breaking. Moreover, a younger generation of evangelicals is emerging which is largely tolerant, and there are voices calling for acceptance of a diversity of opinion. I tend to the diversity model and am quite happy to see different "pockets" within the church which cater to different theologies and perspectives. I don't see the need for intense bitterness over this. However, it is true to say that for some Anglo Catholics the advent of women bishops poses very particular practical problems.I don't know what the answer is there.
ReplyDeleteThese divisions do exist, but many in the mainstream are not that exercised on these issues and don't see them as communion breaking.
ReplyDeleteI think if you are honest with yourself - the middle a just abandoning the Church altogether.
Instead of a Homily on the Christian faith - a "progressive" political diatribe is likely fare in far too many churches.
And who needs that on a Sunday morning
“Instead of a Homily on the Christian faith - a ‘progressive’ political diatribe is likely fare in far too many churches. And who needs that on a Sunday morning.”--Andy S.
ReplyDeleteWell, Andy, who needs a con-evo diatribe against libbruuuls, hooomoosexxuals, and “uppity women” on a Sunday morning, either? Polls here show that the reactionary direction of conservative evangelicals in America over the past 30 years is largely responsible for many young people leaving the churches. Who wants to hang out with a bunch of aging white bigots on a Sunday morning when there is football or golf?
Kurt Hill
In sweltering Brooklyn, NY