Britain is persecuting Christians, say bishops

Praise God, says apostle:

Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:12-17, NIV)

Read the Telegraph story here.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

"Britain's real debt disaster"

Whenever people speak, as an example of evangelicals ‘picking and mixing’, of how the Church has given up on its opposition to usury without any real harm being done (so why don’t we ‘get real’ on ‘other’ issues?), I am minded to observe, firstly, that the current economic crisis was caused by money-lending and, secondly, that we are by no means out of the woods yet.

On the contrary, what we need right now is a healthy dose of the kind of reality provided by this article here.

As the headline say, “We are in danger of ignoring Britain’s real debt disaster”, and that debt disaster, as this blog has been saying for a long time, consists not just in national and institutional borrowing, but individuals who have also borrowed well beyond their means to repay.

Moreover, as the article goes on to observe, they are being encouraged to do so even further by economic pressures and government policies:

Alistair Darling duly obliged this week by removing stamp duty completely from all houses costing less than £250,000. It was almost certainly an astute political move. But then you notice that first-time buyers are currently borrowing an average of between four and five times their annual household income when, to be safe, that multiple should stay below three. You can see the strain. And when you recognise that the rise in interest rates which must, eventually, come would expose all those interest-only borrowers to sharp "rent" increases on undiminished debt, you can see the danger. Such borrowers are a different version of the "sub-prime" which devastated America. It would be much kinder to help them pay down debt quicker than to devise new, clever ways of inciting them, or new entrants, to borrow more.

What is needed is a new attitude — both to debt and to wealth. And this is a matter of morality and (that old favourite of Church campaigning) of justice:

It is wrong to go on presenting the bottom rung of the housing ladder as an essential mark of modern adulthood, like losing your virginity or passing your driving test. It is foolish for the Government to offer equity share to first-time buyers when the housing market is, in real terms, going down. As with endowment mortgages and private pensions in the past, this looks like mis-selling. Indeed, in relation to money, you could say that all our politics in the 21st century has been a form of mis-selling.

And, moreover, it requires a new attitude to life itself:

For half a century, we experienced the "revolution of rising expectations". That revolution went on for so long that the expectations outreached reality. The revolution of lowering expectations is only just beginning.

The problem is, our Western culture does not want to hear this. We regard increasing wealth, and widespread prosperity, as ‘normal’. Indeed, we think that these things can be achieved and maintained without too much effort on our part. But as the article observes,

... the history of the world is one in which most human beings have had a very hard time. A social order which produces steadily, genuinely growing prosperity for most citizens is therefore a great and rare achievement.

The Bible was right to frown on money lending for profit, and the Church was wrong to abandon its objection. (Investment was never the issue — the question was whether money itself could and should be treated as a commodity. So long as it is, there will be people greedy enough to lend to those who cannot afford to borrow, and those stupid, or desperate, enough to borrow what they cannot afford to repay.)

A friend of mine whose business it is to know about these things predicts that we are halfway through the economic crisis, and that the present sense of disaster averted is actually the calm before the second storm. If he is right, and if, as this article suggests, that storm brings rising interest rates (as must surely eventually happen), then we are in for not just difficult, but dangerous times:

Ministers, bankers, Parliament have all failed, while looking after themselves comfortably in the process. So the conditions are ripe for a new politics of grievance and anger. Which is where revolutions begin.

Watch this space.

John P Richardson
27 March 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Fulcrum: their challenge to Canterbury and the challenge they must face

Those of us who have watched (and experienced) the opposition of the open evangelical group Fulcrum to many of the conservative attempts to address the problems within the Anglican Communion over the past several years must greet with charity and relief the announcement from the Fulcrum leadership published yesterday in the Church of England Newspaper.

We may feel it has taken them a long time to wake up to what some of us regarded as the obvious. However, their statement not only finally recognizes the intractable problems within TEC but forcefully challenges the Archbishop of Canterbury in a manner entirely similar to conservative pronouncements from which they have distanced themselves in the past.

In response to the consent of the bishops and Standing Committees of TEC to the election of Mary Glasspool as bishop suffragan in the diocese of Los Angeles, the statement is clear that any claims of an adherence to the ‘letter’ of past agreements is now impossible:

We are now indisputably in a radically new situation. TEC as a body has determinedly, perhaps irrevocably, chosen autonomy over “communion with autonomy and accountability”.

There are three other important recognitions. The first is that

... this is not simply a matter of disagreement about biblical interpretation and sexual ethics although these are central and important. It is now very clearly also a fundamental matter of truth-telling and trust.

Their understanding, in other words, is that TEC’s version of truth-telling is not the same as that understood in the rest of the communion, and that therefore TEC as a body cannot be trusted. This is a major and significant conclusion.

Secondly, they recognize a problem within TEC with “their understanding of how the Spirit leads them.” This has been evident for a long time to those with ‘ears to hear’. But acknowledging the problem must demand from Fulcrum a clear identification as to where authority does lie. We have here a ‘clash of spiritualities’, and yet the open evangelical movement as a whole is undoubtedly vulnerable to just the approach that TEC has adopted. How the Spirit leads the Church is, and always has been, a critical question for Christians, and it is one on which Fulcrum could now usefully speak with clarity to its own constituency.

The third recognition is that members of TEC must now act against the overall polity of TEC and be supported in this by Anglicanism worldwide:

The only hope now is for TEC dioceses to reject TEC’s path by committing to the covenant and for such commitment to be recognised by the Communion.

But this raises the question of recognizing ACNA — something which Fulcrum and it’s associates have seemingly been hitherto reluctant to do. (Canon Simon Butler, who has posted articles and comments on the Fulcrum website, vigorously opposed the original motion in General Synod to support ACNA, although he voted for the final motion.) Will Fulcrum, then, follow the logic of its own conclusion and now respond more positively to those who have already stepped away from TEC? If, as the statement asserts, the Communion “must now proceed in its common life without TEC”, will it be encouraged to do so with ACNA?

Most importantly, however, the statement calls for action from the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not assumed that TEC will take itself into the wilderness. Instead,

The nature of the Communion’s structures at present is such that effecting this distancing will require clear and decisive action by the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the very least he needs to make clear that bishops participating in the May consecration in Los Angeles will thereby exclude themselves from being invited by him to participate in the Instruments or to represent the Communion in any form.

And the statement is absolutely clear about the implications of any failure to act:

 Unless he does this all that the Instruments have repeatedly said in relation to TEC’s conduct will be undermined. The sickness of TEC’s inability to say what it means and mean what it says to the rest of the Communion will then have infected the Instruments and will surely destroy the Communion.

Understandably, the statement is at pains to recognize Rowan Williams’s past efforts. Yet it is remarkably frank in the call it now makes upon him:

Many ... both within the Church of England and the wider Communion (particularly in the Global South which meets next month) have been patient and sought to work with him by supporting the Windsor and covenant processes. They need now to make clear that unless he gives a clear lead then all that he and others have worked for since the Windsor Report and all that is promised by the covenant is at risk because of the new situation in which TEC has placed us.

When news of consents to the election of Mary Glasspool first broke, Fulcrum issued the briefest of responses which ended with the words, “Actions have consequences.”

That same phrase is used in their new statement, one of the consequences they identify being that “TEC as a body has revealed it is incapable of signing the Anglican covenant.” We must be truly grateful that the strong smell of coffee has finally wafted its way to the nostrils of the Fulcrum Leadership Team. We must now ask whether — and indeed how — they will reposition themselves in relation to the leadership of GAFCON, FCA, etc, who have for years been saying the same things, for entirely similar reasons, if not always in a manner of which Fulcrum would approve.

We must also observe that inaction has consequences. If what the Fulcrum Leadership Team has demanded now fails to materialize, will they take things further, and if so, how?

John P Richardson
26 March 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Hitler better than Churchill

Well at least, IMHO, at art.

The Daily Telegraph is carrying a story about Hitler's sketches which failed to get him into the Vienna Academy of Art. The annoying thing, from my point of view, is that they're actually not bad. A critic quoted in the story dismisses them as "only up to 'moderate GCSE standard'", but hey, how many of us are even that good? If I were turning out work like that, I'd be quite pleased.

As is well known, Winston Churchill was also a dabbler in paints, and it gave him great enjoyment, particularly during his periods of "Black Dog", but I don't think he would ever be described (or would have described himself) as brilliant.

One of the issues it raises, of course, is that good things can be done by bad people. But then for Christians this should come as no surprise, since we are all sinners.

Perhaps the other point it raises is that it is better to be a bad painter than a great dictator.

John Richardson
24 March 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Religion, ideology and the problem of evil

I've just been reading Johann Hari's online article The Pope, the Prophet, and the religious support for evil, and wondered at the juxtaposition of two somewhat contradictory attitudes. First, he poses his opening question:

What can make tens of millions of people – who are in their daily lives peaceful and compassionate and caring – suddenly want to physically dismember a man for drawing a cartoon [...] ? Not reason. Not evidence. No. But it can happen when people choose their polar opposite – religion.

So it is religion - specifically Islam in the case of the cartoons - which makes people behave badly. Moreover, he continues, Muslims have a thing or two to learn from Europeans, who have been mocking religion for centuries and now enjoy all the benefits. In fact, he suggests,

It will be a shining day for Muslims when they can do the same.

So three cheers for the Danish cartoons about the prophet! Well, actually no, just two cheers, because,

Some of the cartoons were witty. Some were stupid. One seemed to suggest Muslims are inherently violent – an obnoxious and false idea.

So, according to Hari, Muslims - that is to say, those who, as a result of the unreasonability of Islam, want to physically dismember a man for drawing a cartoon and should instead take the European rationalist 'chill pill' - are not 'inherently' violent, just violent in their "tens of millions" when it comes to their religion.

Hari's target is respect for religions - respect which he feels should be accorded to no idea or institution:

Nobody says I should "respect" conservatism or communism and keep my opposition to them to myself – but that's exactly what is routinely said about Islam or Christianity or Buddhism. What's the difference?

Now Hari is right about the fact that terrible things are done in the name of religion, but I have two questions. The first is why the exemption of Muslims from the very thing that you are writing an article to critique, namely the power of religion to motivate people to do bad things? Hari says Muslims are not 'inherently' violent. What exactly does he mean by 'inherently'?

If he means 'as human beings, rather than as Muslims', then he is stating either a truism: "the human material from which Muslims are drawn is no worse than that for the rest of us," or, on the face of it, a falsehood: "human beings are not inherently violent".

If, however, he means by not 'inherently' that Islam does not, as a religious belief, incline people to violence, then surely he is stating a conscious falsehood (compare his opening paragraph) and, moreover, he is doing this out of 'respect' for Islam.

The other question is this: if all religion is false (which he clearly believes it is), then what would he blame for human violence?

In many cases, of course, it is the role of an ideology to move us to violence, but it is the human material which is surely the underlying problem. One may take, for example, the violence in Northern Ireland, carried out by 'Catholics' and 'Protestants', many of whom clearly had only the most tenuous adherence to Christianity (in evidence of which, note that the levels of churchgoing in Northern Ireland, whilst higher than in the rest of the UK, were never staggering during the recent 'Troubles'). Indeed, in some cases it was the more openly 'secularized' (but ideologically highly motivated) personalities who were at the forefront of the 'struggle'.

You can, it seems, take a number of different - and even contradictory - ideological positions and evoke  the same violence in human beings. Animal liberationists, Green activists, hunt saboteurs, environmentalists are all, it would seem, capable of being people who are happy to create a spot of 'bovver' in the name of a 'good cause', despite the popular image of wearing sandals and living on tofu.

One thing is sure. When we have eliminated religion, we will not have eliminated the human factor, and the the truly inherent violence it entails. Indeed, since religion is, according to people like Hari, just a projection of the human imagination, it is we who have caused even all the violence done in the name of religion.

John Richardson
20 March 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

New Beer for an Old Church

Amongst the many (some weird, some wonderful) things being done to celebrate the 900th anniversary (as near as anyone can be sure) of one of our parish churches, St Mary's Elsenham, the local Saffron Brewery has produced a special celebratory ale, in bottles bearing the Anniversary logo.

Given that Jesus produced 120 gallons of wine at a wedding that had already drunk the place dry, I trust this way of celebrating '900 Years of Worship' will not be seen as inappropriate.

For beer buffs, the following details are given by the brewery:

The beer is Traditional style copper/amber ale with mellow, full hoppy flavour with hints of citrus and biscuit. Brewed with Maris Otter barley, Crystal malt, Amber malt, torrefied wheat, together with Challenger, Fuggles, and Goldings hops. The beer retails in 500ml bottles or in special gift-packs of four for £10 or six for £15.

I have a bottle to sample, but haven't tried it yet!

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Erroneous and Strange Bishops

A book I’m reading at the moment on ministry describes an important part of the minister’s job as being to preserve the ‘gold standard’ of doctrine in the local church. This is surely a very useful concept, and — encouragingly to me as an Anglican — it fits entirely with what is said in the Ordinal about the ministry of the priesthood.

I have often heard it remarked that it is the bishop’s job to “drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine” — usually when the topic of conversation is about how bishops have failed to do this. But I must admit that I have only recently noticed that the same duty is laid on priests at their ordination. They, too, are to “to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within [their] Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given.”

The point is, I believe, important, because the individual must be ordained priest before he can be ordained bishop. And it is at this earlier stage that he is made the ‘gatekeeper’ for the Church’s teaching — the only distinction being, as far as I can see, that the priest’s responsibility is for the local ‘cure’ (ie parish), whereas the bishop’s is for his diocese.

The priest, in other words, neither waits until he is a bishop before he is made responsible for the ‘gold standard’, nor does he derive the ‘gold standard’ from the bishop. Both the priest and bishop-to-be are (with minor variations) asked exactly the same question about Scripture and their attitude to it:

Are you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the same holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach or maintain nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the same?

And then each is asked about how they will put that conviction into practice in their ministries. Of the priest:

Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?

Of the bishop:

Will you then faithfully exercise yourself in the same holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer, for the true understanding of the same; so that you may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers?

And then each is asked whether he will “banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines”. In both cases, however, the ‘gold standard’ is assayed by the Scriptures, with the priest administering the word and sacraments locally within his cure, whilst the bishop, within his diocese, is charged to “correct and punish, according to such authority as [he has] by God’s word and as to [him is] committed by the Ordinance of this Realm” such as be “unquiet, disobedient and criminious”.

The priest owes the bishop due obedience, but priest and bishop are engaged in a common task of teaching what Scripture requires for salvation and refuting error. The problem is what happens when the bishop is the one promoting the ‘erroneous and strange doctrines’.

Of course, the first question is who decides what is ‘erroneous and strange’. And here we have a serious difficulty, because the Church of England came of anything like a doctrinal ‘gold standard’ many years ago. Indeed, the Church of England is doctrinally rather like a country in which banks can not only print their own money but make their own choices about what such notes are actually worth!

Hitherto, the evangelical response to this has been to ignore the vagaries of episcopal beliefs, provided they were not too outrageous. The evangelicals got along without the bishops and, by and large, the bishops were tolerant of the evangelicals.

This mutual tolerance was partly because neither party immediately threatened the other’s existence, but it was also partly because there was, in reality, not much the evangelicals could do about it. The Church of England was an important part of the social fabric — part of the ‘institution’. Complaining, such as when David Jenkins was notoriously appointed Bishop of Durham, made no difference. In any case, so far had the Church departed from the gold standard of doctrine that a degree of unbelief was expected from a bishop. (I have genuinely had people commend a bishop’s appointment with the remark that, “He believes in the resurrection,” as if this were an outstanding attribute!)

The difficulties with this necessary acquiescence, however, are highlighted by the current controversy over sexuality. On the one hand, evangelicals are accused of ‘double standards’, or even homophobia — making more of the issue of sexuality than they have of matters like the incarnation or the Trinity (when it was popular to sit light to those).

And there is some justification for this accusation. When Jeffery John was forced to stand down as Bishop of Reading, the appointment of Stephen Cottrell as his successor was greeted with enthusiasm by evangelicals within the Diocese of Oxford. Yet John and Cottrell are both members of the liberal group, Affirming Catholicism, and a glance at the cover of this book (published in 1998) is a salutory warning that the two men may differ little in underlying theology. For what reason, then, was Cottrell welcomed in place of John, other than that he was not a homosexual?

Yet the issue of sexuality may turn out to have something of a ‘last straw’ effect, in that it highlights other grievances. For far too long, bishops have collectively acted as if the ‘hurly burly’ of establishing and maintaining doctrinal clarity were somehow beneath them.

I have sat in a meeting where an evangelical bishop referred to the “adolescent” behaviour of evangelical parish clergy in relation to the issues dividing the Church. By contrast, he pointed us to the example of the local administration at Church House, where people of competing views ‘got along together’. To him, this clearly represented theological and spiritual maturity — setting aside our differences in the interests of peaceful coexistence.

But of course at the point of delivery of the word and the sacraments, which is to say in the local parish, then, as indicated above, the work of ministry requires from the clergy exactly what the Ordinal actually requires from the bishop: “to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers”. Doctrinal clarity is not some ‘party political game’ (as I have seen another evangelical bishop suggest), but the very means of rescuing Christ’s sheep and keeping them safe.

And so evangelical parish clergy face a problem. Typically, and sadly, the bishops of the Church of England seem to treat anything except the most rudimentary doctrines as beyond their interest or remit. They may (may) act if a priest openly denies the faith, but beyond that they do not seem much to care. Variety, for them, is the spice of the Church’s life. The clergy, by contrast, know that ‘sound doctrine’ is the very heartbeat of their ministry. Yet they often feel unsupported in this conviction by their bishops, and may even find themselves in a situation where a bishop is himself a cause of difficulty.

It is not enough in these circumstances to say that the first duty of the clergy is to obey their bishop. Quite simply, it is not! Obedience to the human authority of the bishop (what the Ordinal refers to as his “authority ... committed [to him] by the Ordinance of this Realm”) must be set within the context of the mutual obedience of bishop and priest to the authority both have “by God’s word”. It is tragic if, as a result of a departure from the ‘gold standard’ of doctrine, the priest must preach against, and resist, the bishop as a ‘gainsayer’. But it may at times be a tragic necessity.

John P Richardson
17 March 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

"Use your vote!" says the Diocese of Chelmsford (from my dire Synod)

A couple of days ago I posted on how I'd Saturday's meeting of our Diocesan Synod was dire. Well, as a sample, here is the address given by the acting Bishop of Chelmsford, Rt Revd Dr Laurie Green. Not that this was itself entirely dire - I just thought people might like to see, and perhaps comment on, what was a fairly average part of the presentations we were given. Maybe it was just me! (And anyway, it plugs his book.)

General Election 2010

Christianity believes fundamentally in incarnation – it believes that God has become intricately involved with the world and its issues through the life of Jesus the Son of God. Incarnation means, in other words, God is down to earth.

The Good News is that God’s grace is changing the world so that it might conform to God’s reign of justice, peace, love and mercy. The Church community therefore has the responsibility to work alongside that divine grace and so be in the forefront of the business of, as the bible has it, “turning the world upside down” because of God’s hopes and plans for it. The Christian life of witness must therefore have this same mark, and engage the thorny issues and complex challenges of life together on this planet and turn it upside down – that is, the Christian life must be politically engaged. Little wonder that the widely accepted ‘Five Marks of Mission’ ¹ describes one element of mission as “transforming the unjust structures of society”. So the upcoming General Election might be seen as nothing less than a mission challenge.

Let’s look together at the earliest pages of the Bible, for whilst science helps us discern how creation may have happened, the book of Genesis goes much deeper and tells us that the meaning of creation is that God brings order out of chaos, society out of anarchy – and what’s more that we have a duty laid upon us by God to work with the grain of that creation and to be stewards of it. A steward is one who tends, one who cares for and ministers, and the Book of Genesis tells us that we are here to be stewards of all creation and to minister to one another. Now this term ‘minister’ is the same word quite rightly taken by the leaders of government – ministers – because they too have this same mandate, to be servants and stewards in the service of the people in the society they serve. So politicians and the Church share in many respects this duty of care for the society we share, and indeed the Church must encourage vocations to the political life – that we should minister together in this way, caring for the whole of God’s creation, and especially for the human beings within it.

Genesis also tells us that God creates us ‘in his own image’. So any lack of respect and care for one another in society is therefore an affront to the image of God that is in us, and must be challenged and sorted out. The quest for Christians is therefore to seek out those situations where the image of God in our fellows is not being respected or where that image is marred, and to do something about it. This is why the prophets, and Jesus too, condemn those who use power or privilege to take advantage of the underprivileged, for that very action mars the image of God in those being oppressed, and indeed mars the image of God in the oppressor.

Now, the Church talks a lot about this in its prayers and in its teachings but the Bible goes further. The Bible does not just talk of principles of stewardship and care for God’s image in us and in others – as wonderful as those principles are – but consistently connects those principles with concrete behaviour. It sets out specific means of redressing wrongs rather than merely rehearsing a list of abstract notions about it. The most obvious example is the Ten Commandments – and this because, as Jesus puts it, “by their fruits you shall know them.” Again, in Matt 25:32ff, the parable of the sheep and the goats, the right relationship with God is equated with concrete acts of compassion and justice towards the less fortunate. The passage asks us, when did we last clothe the naked, feed the hungry or visit the local prison – it does not just talk about that being a nice ‘idea’. So the Bible is calling for us to engage with these issues, not just to think or talk about it.

We might note too that some people try to argue that whilst the Bible is concerned that we care for individuals, the Bible does not spell out that we should engage in politics, first because that is not so much about individuals as groups and the wider society, and second, we should rather keep ourselves pure, and politics may corrupt us. But look again at the Book of Genesis. God creates the individual – ‘Adam’ – but it’s not long before Adam is pestering God for companionship. He could not stand to be alone because God has made him a human being for companionship – a social being. In the Book of Exodus, Moses builds a society – not simply a person for God but a ‘People of God’. Similarly, Jesus gathers his discipleship community – the new Israel – and tells them that, when two or three are gathered – the godly revolution is on. God certainly does care about individuals, but the Bible tells us even more about the building of godly communities. Because we are children of the same heavenly Father we are brothers and sisters on the earth and so we seek not just the good of one, nor even some, but we Christians seek what has become known as the ‘Common Good’ – the good of all and every one of God’s children.

Any arrangement in society that favours the rich over the poor or the strong over the weak is in violation of the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Beatitudes of Jesus. Any such exploitative arrangements are in opposition to a biblical understanding of the Common Good and our duty as Christians. From the Genesis mandate and through to the vision of the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation, we are exhorted to work to change such unjust systems.

Seeking the Common Good, finding structural ways of loving our neighbours, is otherwise known as politics. Of course, the world of politics may not appeal to all of us, but we all have that mandate upon to engage it in some way or other from the moment in our baptism when the sign of the cross is made upon our forehead and those words are spoken by the minister – “do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified” – in other words to get our hands dirty – “and fight valiantly” against all such evil and sin: to risk ourselves in the battle for the Kingdom of God.

In the end, we must ask ourselves the simple question: ‘Am I happy with Britain today?’ If I feel that this society of ours conforms in every respect to my vision of the Kingdom of God then I might try to convince myself that there is indeed no need for politics. But if I feel that mandate upon me to change the world, to turn it upside down so that it more readily conforms to the values of God’s Kingdom, then engagement in politics, at least as a committed and informed voter, is my duty and the duty of us all.

And when it comes to determining how to vote we should not simply apply the usual criterion of ‘what policies are in my own best interest?’ but ask rather, ‘what policies offer most opportunity for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven?’ For those who have time it is therefore well worth while to submit each policy on offer to the scrutiny of a theological analysis rather than merely apply the secular criteria of utility or expediency. To help you do just that you may wish to refer to the new edition of my book ‘Let’s Do Theology’² which shows you how to take a particular issue or concern and apply biblical and theological analysis to it. Otherwise, surf the web for theological reviews of specific policies. However you do it, make sure that the way you vote is determined by a prayerful and Christian perspective. Play your part in God’s mission to ‘transform the unjust structures of society’ that they may more conform to the Divine will for this wonderful world God has created.

Bishop Laurie Green

1 There are five things which the Diocese of Chelmsford is committed to doing:

1. Proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom.
2. Teaching, baptising and nurturing new believers.
3. Responding to human need by loving service.
4. Seeking to transform unjust structures of society.
5. Striving to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain and renew the earth.

2 “Let’s Do Theology” is now available in a completely revised and updated edition from Mowbray/Continuum. 2009.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Bishop James Jones and the challenge to unity

“ ... it is rather the force of custom, whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be shewed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves. Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters ...”

Before he composed his recent address to the Liverpool Diocesan Synod, Bishop James Jones would have done well to have considered the above words of Richard Hooker, found in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (VII.v.8).

One wonders, for example, from how many of his presbyters Bishop Jones sought advice before advancing the opinions he has presented in his speech. One wonders also how his presbyters now feel, given that Bishop Jones has clearly decided that ‘his’ diocese will henceforth adopt a more liberal position on the question of homosexuality.

Earlier signs
Sadly, Bishop Jones signalled his changing views (dare one say his ‘changing attitude’?) on this matter two years ago with an essay entitled ‘Making Space for Truth and Grace’, published in A Fallible Church (Darton, Longman and Todd, edited by Kenneth Stevenson). In this, he defined four ‘walls’ within which he believed debate about human sexuality ought to take place in his diocese.

The first was, in his words, “the authoritative Biblical emphasis upon the uniqueness of marriage as a divine ordinance for the ordering of human society and the nurture of children.”

The second, however, was what he also claimed to be “authoritative Biblical examples of love between two people of the same gender.” Those he gave were “Jesus and his beloved and David and Jonathan,” but I have noted elsewhere the contentious nature of Jones’s exegesis in applying the latter case to modern same-sex relationships.

His third ‘wall’ was “the role of conscience in the Anglican moral tradition,” which, he argued, trumped even the oath of canonical obedience in that, “should you be pressed to do something which in good conscience you deem not to be honest then conscience would demand that you dissent.” That point may yet come back to haunt him.

His fourth ‘wall’, meanwhile, was the need for unity, on the basis that, “disunity saps the energy of the church.”

The last theme is very much to the fore in his speech to his Synod:

As Bishop called to “maintain the spirit of unity in the bond of peace” in the Diocese of Liverpool where we have the full spectrum of moral opinion on human sexuality I believe that to have “diversity without enmity” ... provides a safe and a spiritually and emotionally healthy place for Christians of differing convictions to discern the will of God for our lives.

A plea for ‘ethical variety’
In short, Bishop Jones believes that Christians can, within the Church of England, accept varying views on homosexual practice, just as they have long accepted varying views on pacifism:

Just as the church over the last 2000 years has come to allow a variety of ethical conviction about the taking of life and the application of the sixth Commandment so I believe that in this period it is also moving towards allowing a variety of ethical conviction about people of the same gender loving each other fully.

(For which latter phrase read, ‘having sex with each other physically’.)

One of the most peculiar things in his whole argument, however, is precisely the Bishop’s choice of the “sixth Commandment”, for he certainly could not have pulled off the same approach with the first, second, third, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth. Thus there are, one imagines, very few ‘pro-adultery’ Christians, even within Anglicanism, and, in all probability, just as few (apart from the odd eccentric) who support stealing, lying, idolatry, and so on.

Actually, the Bishop could have made a much better case with the fourth commandment: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” particularly since the word translated “kill” in the sixth commandment generally applies to murder or accidental slaying, and thus has no real bearing on the issue of pacifism, which (given the rest of the Old Testament) has surely been argued on other grounds than that the Commandments absolutely prohibit killing anyone ever.

Once again, the Bishop’s biblical exegesis is contorted on a subject where the need is for clarity. Doubtless he has his reasons for choosing pacifism as the ‘test case’. But as I have indicated, a quick comparison with the other commandments shows that it is in danger of being ‘special pleading’ rather than convincing proof.

The reality of division
But that is not the real problem. The real problem is that the, precisely on the basis of a plea for unity, the Bishop has committed his diocese to a position which will exacerbate division because it is not the adopted position of the Church of England. This is clear even within his own pronouncements. Thus he says,

I bring it to you today to say that this is where I now am, and where I believe the Diocese of Liverpool now is and where I hope that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion might also move. (emphasis added)

He is not where he once was, he believes he has positioned his Diocese where he now is, and he hopes the rest of the Church may catch up! And that position is thus:

... we do already as a Diocese accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality in the same way that the church has always allowed a diversity of ethical opinion on taking human life.

In other words, some say this, and some say that, and who is to say who is wrong? Yet this is not a recipe for unity but for disaster. Bishop Jones needs to read Richard John Neuhaus on ‘The Unhappy Fate of Optional Orthodoxy’, and to look at what the revisionist lobby is saying. The midway position on this topic is not one that can be sustained, not least because it is not one that the key protagonists wish to hold.

A divergence from Issues
Yet we should be in no doubt that Bishop Jones himself has already adopted the view that there is little if anything wrong with the sexual expression of same-sex attraction:

If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be? That in a world of such little love two people sought to express a love that no other relationship could offer them? And if those advocating the acceptance of gay relationship are right and the traditionalists are wrong what will their sin be? That in a church that has forever wrestled with interpreting and applying Scripture they missed the principle in the application of the literal text?

In this, Bishop Jones is at odds with the House of Bishops, especially as that House expressed itself in the very substantial 2003 document Some Issues in Human Sexuality: A guide to the debate. There we read this:

The teaching of Issues in Human Sexuality ... does not have legally binding authority in the Church of England [...].

However, because it reflects the current collective position of the House of Bishops, and because the Church of England is an episcopally led Church in which bishops have a particular responsibility for guiding the Church in matters of faith and morals, it should be accepted by those in the Church as possessing considerable theological and pastoral authority.

Bishop Jones clearly now regards the teaching of Issues in Human Sexuality as a matter, fundamentally, of indifference — as something on which we ought simply to agree to differ:

... I believe the day is coming when Christians who equally profoundly disagree about the consonancy of same gender love with the discipleship of Christ will in spite of their disagreement drink openly from the same cup of salvation.

He must, therefore, be somewhat out of step with the other bishops, and it will be interesting to see how they respond to his attempts to reposition the Diocese of Liverpool — not least in the international arena when he refers to,

... a partnership between an African Diocese taking a traditional stance on gay relationships and a Church of England Diocese which is moving toward embracing a range of ethical convictions on this issue and which is also in partnership with a Diocese in the Episcopal Church of America. (emphasis added)

Note again, it is clear from his language that he regards the Diocese of Liverpool as no longer being where it was (where the rest of England is), and now nearer to the position of TEC!

Conscience and obedience
But in closing we must return to the question of conscience and canonical obedience, raised by Bishop Jones himself. The number of traditionalist clergy in the Diocese of Liverpool may be large or small, but they must surely be waking up this morning with troubled consciences. The Bishop has declared not only his own position but, ostensibly, that of his diocese as being one which accepts diversity on sexuality. Is this a position which his ‘presbyters’ would advise him (following Hooker) to adopt?

If not, then they might like to consider the rest of what Hooker said to the bishops,

Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters, but to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the Church hath power to take from them.

Of course the Bishop of Liverpool may not be deposed by his presbyters — not under the present arrangements of establishment. But he may be disobeyed on the basis of conscience, and it is Bishop Jones himself who has advocated this.

Sadly, Bishop Jones has not merely strained his own credentials, he has challenged the unity of his diocese and his national church. The situation is tragic, not least because this has been done in the name of unity. The question now is what the other bishops, and his own priests, will do in response.

John P Richardson
March 7, 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Diocesan Synod was Dire

After a very early meeting with our treasurers this morning (Saturday), I went on to a meeting of the Chelmsford Diocesan Synod, of which I am a recently re-elected member.

After a couple of hours of listening to presentations on the church’s role in politics and clergy terms and conditions of service I left as tactfully as I could just before the official close.

I am sure — yea, I know for a fact — that the men and women who make up the Synod are genuine and well-meaning, but the whole thing just seemed to me to have an air of death hanging over it.

The one thing that should have been good was the frequency of references to the Bible. Sadly, these only occurred in a way that ripped verses out of context and (just conveniently) fitted the opinions fo the speakers.

You might never have guessed that the new arrangements of ‘Common Tenure’ for Anglican clergy are just like God’s covenant with Israel, but apparently they are. Equally you might not have known that St Paul had staff reviews in mind when he penned Ephesians 4:25, “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbour,” but apparently he did. And so it went on.

Still, it could have been worse. I could have been at the meeting of the Liverpool Diocesan Synod to hear Bishop James Jones declare his own departure from the House of Bishops collective position on homosexuality.

Then I really would have had something to be depressed about when I got home.

John Richardson
6 March 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The future of Anglican ministry: "A new authority — and with teaching"?

In considering ministry as it operates within the Church of England, there are, I am suggesting, three important and overlapping features of that ministry which have to be taken into account.

The first is what Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali identified, as basically two religions, or certainly two theological paradigms: which we may loosely label them ‘traditionalist’ and the ‘liberal’. Whilst we may quibble at the lack of precision, it is easy to see these two paradigms not just in action but in opposition, when one considers the current critical debates within the Church.

The second is that the Church of England embraces two quite different concepts of its priesthood which, for the sake of simplicity, we may designate as ‘personal’ and ‘functional’, or to use another form of shorthand, ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’. Once again, these are imprecise distinctions, but it is easy to see how they operate differently on any given Sunday.

The third feature is more sociological than theological, but is nevertheless of crucial importance, and that is the presence of two models of authority: ‘Authority A’, which is imposed by institutional rules and regulations, and ‘Authority B’, which is earned by merit and which may or may not correspond to ‘Authority A’.

The important thing to recognize is that these features all overlap and there are therefore a number of possible permutations. In this post, however, I want to consider just one of these, and the implications it has for Anglican ministry.

Regular readers will probably not be surprised when I say that the model of priesthood I believe to be most consistent with the heritage of the Anglican Reformation and most helpful for the future of the Church of England in this country has a ‘traditionalist’ theological paradigm and a ‘functional’ view of priesthood.

In the area of authority, however, I believe there needs to be more emphasis on ‘Authority B’, rather than ‘Authority A’. That is to say, the paradigm of authority in the Church ought to emphasise competence for the task, rather than institution into the order.

This, however, raises the question as to what is the task of ministry. Here our different paradigms provide different answers, but they essentially divide along theological lines according to the understanding of eschatology — the doctrine of the ‘last things’. What we believe is the task of ministry will depend very much on what we believe is the outcome of life and existence.

For the traditionalist, the Creeds used regularly in Morning and Evening Prayer and in Holy Communion provide a definitive answer, namely that Christ shall come “to judge the quick [ie living] and the dead.” The liberal paradigm generally takes a different view, but I will leave those to one side.

It is with this outcome in mind that the Ordinal joined to the Prayer Book sets out its model of ministry. In addressing those to be ordained, the Bishop says to them,

Ye have heard, Brethren ... of what dignity, and of how great importance this Office is, whereunto ye are called ... that is to say, to be Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards of the Lord; to teach, and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord’s family; to seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever.

That, then, is the task of the ministry — to feed Christ’s flock and to seek and save his lost sheep from coming judgement. Thus the Bishop adds,

Wherefore consider with yourselves the end of the Ministry ... and see that ye never cease your labour, your care and diligence, until ye have done all that lieth in you ... to bring all such as are or shall be committed to your charge, unto that agreement in the faith and knowledge of God, and to that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ, that there be no place left among you, either for error in religion, or for viciousness in life.

Notice the points highlighted by my italics! The means to the end of saving Christ’s people is to bring them to perfection of faith, without error in doctrine or immorality in life. However, this is a supernatural task, beyond mere human competence, and so the Bishop warns,

Howbeit, ye cannot have a mind and will thereto of yourselves; for that will and ability is given of God alone: therefore ye ought, and have need, to pray earnestly for his Holy Spirit.

Nevertheless, what means to this end are available to them as human beings? The answer the Bishop gives is this:

And seeing that ye cannot by any other means compass the doing of so weighty a work, pertaining to the salvation of man, but with doctrine and exhortation taken out of the Holy Scriptures, and with a life agreeable to the same; consider how studious ye ought to be in reading and learning the Scriptures, and in framing the manners both of yourselves, and of them that specially pertain unto you, according to the rule of the same Scriptures; and for this self-same cause, how ye ought to forsake and set aside, as much as ye may, all worldly cares and studies.

According to this model, then — the traditional, reformed Anglican, model of ministry — the priest is made competent for the task of saving Christ’s sheep by the help of the Holy Spirit and by being a constant learner and teacher of the Bible. The priest will not be a mere ‘theoretician’. On the contrary, the Bishop finally admonishes them, “to sanctify the lives of you and yours, and to fashion them after the Rule and Doctrine of Christ, that ye may be wholesome and godly examples and patterns for the people to follow.”

Nevertheless, competency in ministry, according to this model, derives from the study and application of what is in the Bible.

Now there are two obvious points to make here. The first is that one may be given the Anglican ‘Authority A’ without such competence, or even without any real conviction that it is worth acquiring. The second, and more easily overlooked, is that one may actually have such competence without being granted ‘Authority A’.

However, it is my firm conviction that in the Church of England we ought to grant ‘Authority B’ to those who have the competence that the Prayer Book says is required to achieve the ends for which the priesthood exists, that is to say, the seeking and saving of Christ’s sheep, which can only be done “with doctrine and exhortation taken out of the Holy Scriptures, and with a life agreeable to the same.”

Moreover — and this is even more important, in my view — given how the Christian life and ministry works according to the Ordinal, this ‘Authority B’ ought actually to be esteemed in the Church more highly than the ‘Authority A’ of orders and titles.

This suggestion itself has some support from Scripture:

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching. (1 Tim 5:17, ESV)

Of course, as this verse suggests, not all ‘ministry’ is preaching and teaching, and people may be esteemed for other things (such as good works and acts of charity, Acts 9:36). But the building up of the Church clearly relies on the ministry of the word, and therefore competence in this should receive due recognition:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Eph 4:11-16, ESV)

Moreover, the advantage of this understanding is that it tends to promote a more egalitarian Church which is also more of a meritocracy. Jesus himself warned against a model of authority based on titles and status:

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. (Matt 23:8-11, ESV)

What this means, of course, is not that none may teach but that any may teach who are willing and able to acquire the right skills and attitude. And furthermore, all are to be involved in the teaching process. Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom,” surely echoes Deuteronomy 6:6-9,

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (ESV)

Indeed, one might argue that a properly-focussed New Testament church would in this respect resemble the Jewish yeshiva or Muslim madrassa — places where the focus is on studying and learning the sacred texts, driven by a recognition of their significance for the community. By contrast, in Christianity the ‘Sunday School’ is for children and systematic learning for adults is the exception, not the rule.

Finally, this has huge implications for the future of Anglican ministry. It is already recognized that there are too few clergy to sustain the old parish system — based on the ‘personal’, ‘Catholic’, model of priesthood, even though it has a ‘Protestant’, ‘functional’ overlay — and that there will be even fewer in future.

According to one understanding of priesthood, the answer will be to create more priests for the purposes of the liturgy and the succouring of individuals — primarily the seek, the lonely, the elderly and so on. And that can be achieved. But we will not worry too much about competence in the word of God. We certainly won’t be concerned whether those individuals can handle the ancient languages, Greek and Hebrew, or whether they are aware of past and present trends in theology (at least, not the past trends!). In this respect, it is worth comparing the admonition given by the Bishop in the old Ordinal to the truncated version used in the new service (743 words compared with 367, and most of the good stuff taken out).

But according to another understanding, what we need is priests supremely competent in the Scriptures who can, in the words of 2 Timothy 2:2, “entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” the content of the Apostolic preaching and teaching, so that lives may be transformed and the Church built up.

“A new authority — and with teaching” (cf Mk 1:27). That would require a transformation in our understanding of ministry. But it would certainly result in a transformation of our experience of church.

John P Richardson
2 March 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Evangelicals, priesthood and elitism

A lot of what I have written about ministry over the last few days has been ‘thinking out loud’ (for the last posting, see here) — and whilst I don’t think I’m at the end of the trail, I do think I’ve reached something of a personal milestone.

Some time ago, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali caused some controversy when he said that there are “virtually two religions” in the Church of England. He was referring, of course, to the long-standing divide between conservatives and liberals, and although this division is endlessly nuanced, in the end it is clearly present.

I have now reached the (interim!) conclusion, however, that we must overlay on top of this divide between “two religions” another divide between ‘two ministries’ — in short, two ‘priesthoods’.

On one side of the divide are those who view the Anglican priesthood as essentially ‘functional’. The priest is someone given public authority to do what any Christian can do, as it were ‘in the privacy of their home’. Ordination therefore confers on the priest nothing other than this authority, and any accompanying prayer for the grace of the Holy Spirit is simply that the priest may perform this function of priesthood properly and effectively — just as we might similarly pray for a newly-arrived teacher or a local mayor. For sake of simplicity, we will call this the ‘priest as presbyter’ model, bearing in mind that the English word ‘priest’ derives from the Greek presbuteros, or ‘elder’.

On the other side are those who take the view that the Anglican priesthood is essentially ‘personal’ (the technical term is ‘ontological’). In ordination, the person being ordained is, as it were, ‘made into’ a priest — he (or she) is no longer quite what they were as a layperson, and is not simply ‘authorized’ by ordination, but is changed and ‘empowered’ by it. The views on this ‘empowerment’ may vary, but the essential characteristic is that priest and laity are in some way separated in what they are, not just in what they do. We will call this simply the ‘priestly’ model, since for most people, the word ‘priest’ conjures up exactly this ‘set apart specialness’ of someone different from the layperson.

Now of course, there are nuances also to these distinctions. There are many jobs, for example, in which it is hard to separate the office from the person. A policeman, for example, is always a member of the police at all hours of the day or night, whether on duty or not. Again, a fortunate person may find themselves in a job for which they were, in a sense, ‘made’ — such as the skilled teacher or compassionate carer. The clergy are very fortunate in often being able to find their niche in this way.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the two views are clearly distinguishable. And the important thing is that they overlap the other distinction between liberal and conservative.

In particular, there are traditionalist priests and liberal priests — both sure of their ‘separateness’ and of the fundamental importance of their own ordination to their relationship with God, with the Church and with the world, but both (as Nazir-Ali observed) operating with entirely different theological assumptions at almost every other level. Importantly, this overlap also includes ‘evangelical priests’, who, for example, see themselves having a singular importance in relation to the sacraments, not simply a particular role.

One finds rather less overlap between traditionalist and liberal presbyters. Indeed, I’m not sure I’ve ever actually encountered the latter. On the contrary, the insistence on using the actual term ‘presbyter’ is something I have only found in the most ‘straight’ of strait-laced evangelicals. However, there are undoubtedly liberal Anglican priests for whom what they do outside the framework of liturgy and church is a fundamental expression of their ‘priesthood’ — as theologically important to them as celebrating the sacraments.

To repeat: the key point is that the ‘priesthoods’ overlap, rather than simply distinguish, the theologies.

The recognition of these two ‘priesthood’ models is important, however, for two pressing reasons. The first is that it directly affects whom we will admit to the priesthood and on what basis. The second is that it directly affects what we expect this person to do, and therefore how we will train and equip them.

Now the problem as I see it at the moment is this: the Church of England desperately needs, and indeed is increasingly demanding of its ministers, a predominantly ‘functional’, ‘presbyteral’, approach to ministry. However, it is deeply committed to the personal, ‘priestly’, model of ministry. We are thus calling people on the basis of their ‘personal’ characteristics, and training them to function accordingly, whilst what we need is predominantly ‘functional’ ministers, completely unlike what has gone before, enabling others to share their ‘presbyterate’.

The final point I want to make at this stage, however, is that for all evangelicals our whole practice of ministry is infused with the ‘image’ of the personal priest. The result is that even whilst we may decry the ‘sacramentalism’ of the  ‘priestly’ model, we imbue the  ‘presbyterial’ model with an almost unconscious elitism! Later, when there is a bit more time, I want to post on the implications of this for Anglican ministry.

John Richardson
1 March 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.