Some (slightly rushed) thoughts for Trinity Sunday

(What I will be preaching later)

The Trinity — an embarrassing doctrine?

In the Church of England’s calendar, today is Trinity Sunday, but time was when the Church of England seemed to become a bit embarrassed about this.

Indeed the calendar was re-written so that Sundays after Trinity, which run from now until the run-up to Christmas became Sundays after Pentecost.

Pentecost seemed much more in keeping with the new mood of the Church. Pentecost was about experience — present experience of the Spirit in the life of the Church and the believer.

Trinity seemed to be about an obscure doctrine rooted in the Church’s past.

Pentecost was also up to date because of the charismatic movement. The Trinity was just old-fashioned.

On top of that, the Church had been through a period of academic doubt in the 1970s, with the publication of books like The Myth of God Incarnate, to which several prominent Anglican theologians had contributed.

This suggested that Jesus was never meant to be regarded — and certainly never thought of himself — as anything other than a human being, albeit one with an extraordinary sensitivity towards God.

But if Jesus was not God incarnate, then at least one person of the Trinity simply disappeared.

And then on top of that, the Trinity was so hard to explain, as anyone who’d ever invited Jehovah’s Witnesses into their living-room could testify. The evidence for the Trinity seemed to be obscure, and as anyone who has ever recited the Athanasian Creed would know, it all gets a bit tortuous and convoluted.

So for a time, the doctrine of the Trinity became something about which the Church was almost embarrassed. Certainly no-one was in a rush to take on the preaching slot on Trinity Sunday.

Not mathematics ...

One of the reasons for our problems with the Trinity was that the doctrine was always approached in terms of mathematics.

Hymns like ‘Three in one and one in three’ illustrate the problem. If God is one, how can God be three? If God is three, how can God be one?

One of the delights of Trinity Sunday was the various ways in which sermon illustrations would try and get round this. There was the Trinity as shamrock — three leaves on one plant. Or the Trinity as water, steam and ice — three forms of the same substance.

The basic problem with all these illustrations was that they overlooked one important factor — the Trinity is nothing like anything else. The Trinity is one of the things that is definitively ‘of God’ — something where you can’t compare God with anything else.

We should really save ourselves the effort of trying to find something like the Trinity, or trying to make it possible to understand the Trinity by comparing it with anything else.

... but relationship

There is, however, one important way in which we can begin to understand the Trinity in terms familiar to us.

This is something which actually comes from the Eastern churches. In recent years, people have begun to think about the Trinity less in terms of mathematics, more in terms of relationship.

We have to ask, why would anyone come with the doctrine of the Trinity in the first place. As we’ve already seen, it is a very complicated doctrine — unnecessarily complicated, we might say.

The answer lies in the revelation of Jesus — both what he was like and what he said. We get an idea of this from the prayer in John’s gospel that takes up John 17, and it begins with the very first verse:

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.”

The ‘father-son’ relationship points us towards the existence of the Trinity, and to its nature.

The eternal son

The idea of ‘son of God’ isn’t unique to the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the Messianic king was spoken of as God’s ‘son’. So the phrase in itself meant nothing more than someone in a special relationship with God.

But the way Jesus spoke about the father, clearly suggested a relationship beyond this. So in v 5, Jesus speaks to the Father about ‘the glory I had with you before the world began.’

This already hints at an eternal relationship — one that exists outside time. But it is not just the duration of the relationship that is special, but the quality. So twice in this passage, in vv 11 and 22, Jesus talks of himself and the father being ‘one’. And in v 21 he says to the Father, ‘you are in me and I am in you.’

To put it crudely, it is not just that the Father and the Son have been together a long time, but that they are intertwined. They are ‘one together’.

Perichoresis

The technical theological term for this is ‘perichoresis’. I think I’m right in saying it derives from a term meaning ‘dancing round’, but the core idea is that the identity of the persons in the Trinity arises from the relationship with the other persons.

It is easiest to understand this — if we can understand it at all — in the way we speak about ‘father’ and ‘son’.

You can be a person without needing other people. You can be a person on your own, and if the whole world were wiped out whilst you were up in a satellite orbiting the globe you’d still be a person.

But you cannot be a father without a child. You cannot be a son without a parent. So in the godhead, the father actually cannot be the father without the son, and vice versa. The persons of the Trinity are who they are because of the other persons.

And for them to be who they are eternally, the relationships have to be eternal. The father is only the eternal father if there is an eternal son, and vice versa, whilst the Spirit is also caught up in this.

Augustine thought of the Trinity as the eternal love between the Father and the Son. And he is certainly the Spirit who proceeds from the father through the Son.

The centrality of relationship

The Trinity, then, is to be understood relationally, and that lifts the Trinity out of being dry theory to vibrant practice, for if the Trinity is relationship, then relationships are of eternal and fundamental significance.

And this is something else we see in the prayer in John, for at the heart of it, Jesus is praying for his disciples to be caught up in the relationship of the Trinity.

The Trinity is a relationship of ‘oneness in many’, and so Jesus’ prayer is for oneness for the many disciples. In v 11 Jesus prays:

I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name —the name you gave me —so that they may be one as we are one.

This is much more than a ‘prayer for Christian unity’. It is a prayer for the divine character — the disciples are protected by the divine name given to Jesus and used, v 12, to protect them:

While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me.

Mission

The church is to be a community in which the divine character — the name of God — is present and recognized. And so this ‘oneness in many’ is also central to mission. So in vv 20-23, we read:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, ²¹ that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ²² I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: ²³ I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Oneness in many is to be the outcome of mission and the evidence of the truth. And all one can say to that is how very far the church has therefore fallen from the truth!

Transcending ourselves

I began by saying that the character of the Trinity is unique to God, and that is true. We cannot explain the Trinity because there is nothing to explain it by.

However, that is not to say that the character of the Trinity is therefore irrelevant to the world. On the contrary, I have tried to show briefly that it is of the very essence of the world in which we live.

At heart, the Trinity is relational — it is about the eternal interrelationships of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each being what each is because the others exist as who they are.

But the other thing we can say about the Trinitarian God, because God has revealed it to us, is that he seeks out other relationships, to draw others into oneness with one another and with himself.

In other words, the character of the Trinity drives both creation and salvation — it drives the mission of the Church. And so throughout the prayer of John 17, Jesus speaks of being sent by the Father — in 3,8,18,21,23 and 25, and therefore he sends the disciples, who remain in the world (vv 13-18) to continue what Jesus came to do.

And Jesus also speaks of returning to the Father, not in isolation, but preceding the disciples who will also be drawn into the relationship of the Trinity. So although he is no longer remaining in the world, he prays in v 24,

Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

And v 21 expresses this same hope. The prayer is for all the disciples, present and future (and we may certainly add, past), that:

... all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us ...

The indescribable, indefinable Trinitarian relationship is ultimately to be shared. That is the what flows from the nature of that relationship, and that is what should inspire us in our mission for God.

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.

Rowan’s Pentecost letter in a nutshell

Help me out here. I am trying to finish working on the bathroom and tidying up before my wife gets home, so I really don’t have time to read through Rowan Williams’s Pentecost letter as thoroughly as it no doubt ought to be read. What it seems to add up to, though, is this (readers of Billy Bunter school stories will be familiar with the scenario): 

The pupils of the lower fifth have been warned about talking in class, but that naughty Jefferts-Schori girl, sitting at the back with her friends, has done it again. The patience of kindly-but-stern Dr Williams has snapped, and he has decided to keep the whole class in from break.

Meanwhile, he plans to ask the school council what else he can do to stop this class from disrupting the entire fifth year. But of course Ms Schori, along with the other talkers in the lower fifth is on the council, so that is going to be a difficult move.

Dr Williams has meanwhile retreated to his study, where he is perhaps wishing he could go back to the good old days of giving out six-of-the-best.

That seems to be the sum of it, unless I’ve missed something vital.

Yarooh!

John Richardson
29 May 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.

Premier Radio debate on the Bible and homosexuality

Yesterday I went down to the studios of Premier Christian Radio to record a debate on the Bible and homosexuality. Also taking part were Mike Dark of Accepting Evangelicals and Jeremy Marks of Courage ministries.

I was introduced as a spokesman for Reform, though I'm not sure that's strictly accurate!

It was all very amicably conducted, despite the seriousness of the topic. You can hear the outcome on Saturday at 2.30pm, or check out the podcast which will be available here on the website later. There will be another broadcast the following week on the pastoral issues (we recorded two debates back to back), with Martin Hallett of True Freedom Trust on the phone.

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.

Parliament and the "moral authority" of the Act of Synod

As a PS to my earlier article, someone e-mailed me a link to Hansard for 1st November 1993, prior to the final parliamentary debate which approved the 1992 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, which records the answer from Mr Michael Alison to a question put by Harry Greenway MP.

This makes it quite clear that without the Act of Synod, Parliament would "insist" that the Synod put in place a further Measure, "to create a statutory provision" for those opposed to the ordination of women and requiring appropriate episcopal provision. The necessary linkage between the 1992 Measure and the 1993 Act is thus, I believe, firmly established, as is the "moral authority" of the Act.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners) : The Act of Synod will provide for the appointment of up to three new suffragan bishops to act as provincial episcopal visitors. Their remuneration will be the same as that of other suffragan bishops. Housing and a car will be provided and working expenses will be reimbursed.

Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the Church Commissioners will bear in mind the great concern expressed by the House in last Friday's debate that priests and congregations committed to a male priesthood be properly looked after when females--ladies--are ordained as priests in a few months' time? Will he give an assurance that the Act of Synod measure which deals with the matter will give proper moral and real authority to those bishops committed to protecting those congregations and to serving them?

Mr. Alison : I am delighted that my hon. Friend has underscored the need for the co-called Act of Synod to have real teeth and real moral authority. I shall convey the anxiety that my hon. Friend has expressed to the General Synod when it meets at Church house next week to discuss the very point that my hon. Friend has raised. The Synod will underscore the need for an Act which is adequate. If it is not adequate, the House will insist that a Measure be brought before the House to create a statutory provision.

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.

Women bishops and other episcopal divisions - embracing comprehensiveness and allowing flexibility

In my last post, I argued that in enabling the ordination of women, the Church of England actually did not just one but two new things.

On the one hand, it allowed women to enter the priesthood. On the other hand, and entirely as an innovation in itself, it allowed individuals and congregations to opt out of receiving their ministry or recognizing their pastoral authority.

The mechanism by which this apparent ‘fudge’ was received (arguably a fudge itself — but that is another matter) was the novel concept of a ‘period of reception’. It is fundamentally important, however, to understand what this meant. Here is a summary from an official guide to the report of the House of Bishops’ Working Party on Women in the Episcopate (the ‘Rochester’ Report):

The term ‘reception’ is one that is often used in relation to the debate about the ordination of women. The report explains that in Anglican usage this term has come to mean something very specific. It does not mean the process by which the ministry of women is accepted in the Church. Instead it is used to refer to the process in which the Church of England reflects with the universal Church on the authenticity of its decision to ordain women. (Emphasis added)

Nothing could be clearer, except that the phrase ‘reflects ... on the authenticity of its decision’ is Anglican-speak for ‘tries to see ... whether we got it right or wrong’.

Moreover, this guide adds two further important points. It continues:

Part of the current discussion about the proposal to ordain women bishops centres on two questions:

            •          Would it be right for this further step to be taken while the decision to ordain women priests is still in a period of reception?

            •          Would a decision to ordain women as bishops necessarily bring this period of reception to an end?

Now there are clearly those who not agree with but advocate the second point. That is to say, they do think the decision to ordain (or consecrate) women as bishops would bring the period of reception to an end, and they wish that it would do so decisively and speedily.

For the purposes of my earlier argument, however, the first point is the more important, namely that since 1992 the Church of England has been, and still is, in the period of reception described above.

This means that not only opponents of women’s ordination, but supporters who have been or become members of the Church of England since that date knew (or at least, ought to have known) that this was an ‘open’ question.

And this calls for a certain humility in the present. Opponents of women priests must accept that they have been willing to be part of a church which nevertheless ordains women to the priesthood. Supporters of women priests must accept they have been willing to be part of a church which allows the ministry of women priests to be questioned and refused. If there has been any notion of ‘like it or lump it’ so far, it has been that up to the present people have had to ‘like or lump’ this arrangement.

We must also take full note of the possibility, noted in the second bullet point, that this situation need not change, even with the introduction of women bishops. But for how long ought this to be allowed to continue?

Interestingly, when the legislation was drawn up to allow women to be ordained as priests, there were proposals to limit the provisions for dissent. These, however, were refused by the General Synod. Thus, whilst the legislation does not explicitly refer to an indefinite period of reception, it excluded wording which would have had precisely the effect of imposing a limit. By implication, then, the legislation at the time was constructed so as to envisage a process that would take ‘as long as it took’, as the Manchester Report noted when it pointed out the problems of going back on this principle.

Those who wish to bring down the curtain on the ‘period of reception’ therefore need to recognize that they are doing so unilaterally (there is substantial disagreement that his should be done) and opportunistically (because they can), despite the fact that the Church of England has officially operated until now an ‘open door’ policy for both supporters and opponents of women’s ordination, overtly welcoming them all to stay and telling them that they are a valid part of the Anglican Communion.

Now in such circumstances, it is, I believe, neither immoral nor unreasonable to contemplate radical action to ensure that the place one has occupied in the church is allowed to continue.

Sadly there are those who are quite happy to argue that the General Synod is not bound by earlier decisions or commitments, and that it is quite entitled to do whatever its members choose to do in this regard, up to and including taking decisions that would effectively unchurch present members of the Church of England. (One is reminded of the way in which colonial powers treated native populations in the past, when earlier treaties — before the colonists became a secure majority — were replaced by less generous terms and conditions.)

Some would regard the termination of the period of reception by the fiat of Synod as a job well done. Others, however, would regard it as a betrayal, not least of the talk, for the last eighteen years, of ‘two integrities’. Indeed, in this respect a decision by the General Synod could not be regarded as a decision by the ‘Church of England’ since it will, of necessity, rely on a majority overruling a minority at a point of faith and conscience hitherto encouraged and embraced.

Moreover, this issue confronts us at a time when the English episcopate are ‘wobbling’ on their commitment to the position hitherto maintained by Issues in Human Sexuality.

Yet I would want to suggest, tentatively, that the latter may well provide an indicator of the way ahead.

In his recent address to his diocesan synod, the Bishop of Gloucester argues (as has the Bishop of Liverpool) that sexuality is, precisely like the ordination and consecration of women, a ‘second order’ issue over which, on the basis of Anglican ‘comprehensiveness’, we ought to be able to live together in ‘a’ communion if not full communion.

At least in regard to the ordination of women, the Bishop is right. That is exactly what the legislation enacted in 1993 set out to achieve, and it succeeded. We do indeed live together and, insofar as we can regard Rodney King as a theologian, we do all, just about, ‘get along’ according to his dictum. One of the reasons we are able to do this, however, is that no-one is compelled to accept the ministry of ordained women.

Logically, then, the way for us to continue to ‘get along’ over women bishops is to allow the same with regard to them and, moreover, to allow it with the maximum exercise of principle and conscience, rather than (as Synod seem currently bent on proposing) the minimum. Doubtless this could be achieved, and though doubtless it would be messy, we would continue to ‘get along’.

Now as observed, the Bishop of Gloucester draws a direct parallel between this issue and the issue of sexuality. And to some extent, we already see this applied in practice. He himself, along with James Jones, the Archbishop of Canterbury and probably others, hold one view but operate by another, thus expressing a kind of ‘internal’ comprehensiveness according to their own understandings.

The problem arises when such an understanding on such an issue is ‘externalized’ so as to impinge on others who would come under their ministry. In that case, there would be serious difficulties in conscience for clergy and laity who, as the Bishop of Gloucester recognizes, regard this as a ‘first order’ issue — a point of view which, he says, he does not share but does appreciate.

What should then happen? The simple answer is to allow people — clergy and congregations — to pick their own bishops. This is already allowed to some extent under the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod. It would, I suggest, become a necessity in the case of consecrating women as bishops, but it might actually be an advantage to the Church overall in the face of other disagreements currently threatening division. And if that is not to be ‘allowed’, then it may simply have to happen by choice.

That is what I hope to explore in a future post.

John Richardson
24 May 2010

(While you're here why not become a Fan of the Thirty-Nine Articles?)

As a PS Someone e-mailed me a link to Hansard for 1st November 1993, prior to the final parliamentary debate which approved the 1992 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, which records the answer from Mr Michael Alison to a question put by Harry Greenway MP. This makes it quite clear that without the Act of Synod, Parliament would "insist" that the Synod put in place a further Measure, "to create a statutory provision". The linkage between the Measure and the Act is, I believe, firmly established as is the "moral authority" of the Act. The cynic might say you can also see why there is so much opposition to continuing "statutory provision" for opponents of women bishops.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners) : The Act of Synod will provide for the appointment of up to three new suffragan bishops to act as provincial episcopal visitors. Their remuneration will be the same as that of other suffragan bishops. Housing and a car will be provided and working expenses will be reimbursed.

Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the Church Commissioners will bear in mind the great concern expressed by the House in last Friday's debate that priests and congregations committed to a male priesthood be properly looked after when females--ladies--are ordained as priests in a few months' time? Will he give an assurance that the Act of Synod measure which deals with the matter will give proper moral and real authority to those bishops committed to protecting those congregations and to serving them?

Mr. Alison : I am delighted that my hon. Friend has underscored the need for the co-called Act of Synod to have real teeth and real moral authority. I shall convey the anxiety that my hon. Friend has expressed to the General Synod when it meets at Church house next week to discuss the very point that my hon. Friend has raised. The Synod will underscore the need for an Act which is adequate. If it is not adequate, the House will insist that a Measure be brought before the House to create a statutory provision.

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.

Women bishops - nothing new in the innovation?

When the General Synod legislated in 1993 for the ordination of women as priests, it changed the Church of England in more ways than one.

Most obviously, it introduced women into orders in which they could exercise new sacramental and leadership rôles. Just as importantly, however, it allowed for disagreement with what had been done and enshrined this in the enabling legislation.

This provision was effected at two levels. One was in the parliamentary Measure, which contained opt-out clauses for parishes which did not want to receive the sacramental ministry of women or which did not want a woman as an incumbent, priest in charge or team vicar (Resolutions A and B).

The other was the passing of an Act of Synod which allowed those same parishes to request from their Diocesan bishop, if he himself would ordain women, that episcopal ministry be provided by someone who did not accept the ordination of women (the so-called Resolution C).

In the present situation, therefore, two important points must be borne in mind. The first is that these provisions were an integral part of the package, not — despite some people’s opinions to the contrary — an appendage. There were undoubtedly people in Synod who only voted for the Measure because it contained Resolutions A and B, and it is equally undoubted that parliament accepted the Measure because of these provisions and because of the terms and conditions of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod.

Secondly, there was no sunset clause on these provisions. On the contrary, as the Manchester Report recently observed, they were offered indefinitely — for as long as people would require them. This was the general understanding at the time, and that has consequences.

On the one hand, it meant that people who had misgivings about the ordination of women as priests nevertheless felt there was a continuing place for them in the Church of England. This is one reason why the take-up on the settlement package for those who felt they had to leave the church was so low. There was sufficient unity amongst evangelicals and sufficient numerical strength amongst Anglo-Catholics to persuade doubters in both groupings that they could continue as loyal (if not entirely contented) Anglicans.

The phrase that described this situation was ‘a period of reception’. This emphatically did not, however, indicate ‘a time during which the Church would get used to what had happened after which dissent would no longer be expected’.

Rather, as Rowan Williams has himself observed, it meant an opportunity to test whether what had been put in place was right or wrong. Moreover, as he pointed out, the Church of England is still in what is formally acknowledged to be “a time of discernment and reception”.

This has very important implications both for opponents and for supporters of the consecration of women as bishops.

First, it means that everyone who has remained in or joined the Church of England since 1993, or has been ordained into its orders, ought to know that they have accepted the existence of ‘two integrities’ and indeed the ongoing provisionality of women’s ordination.

This is vital to recognize, because it is being said that anyone ordained since that date ought to accept both the ordination of women and that there is no place for dissent from this.

That is not (wholly) true — and in any case cuts both ways.

It is true that anyone who has remained in or joined the Church of England during the last eighteen years must accept that it is a church that ordains women. That is a simple fact, and to that extent they must themselves be committed to the ‘two integrities’ approach.

It is also true, however, anyone who has remained in or joined the Church of England since 1993, or entered its orders, did so knowing that the Church of England did not require anyone to accept the ordination of women, and, moreover, that the Church of England had sought to include opponents in its ranks on the understanding that they were full members of that church, entitled to operate at every level of its ministry up to and including diocesan bishop. (That the latter has been observed mostly in the breach does not negate the fact that the principle exists — though it does rather mitigate against the idea that the church can work on the basis of ‘codes of practice’.)

What this means for the present round of legislation, however, is that the status quo established in 1993 still prevails: the Church has deliberately included people who take contrary views on the ordination of women and they themselves have willingly been part of it.

This, then, has consequences for what ought to happen next, for when the Church agreed to ordain women, it recognized that the ministry of some of its clergy would not be acceptable to all of its members. Now that it is about to consecrate women as bishops, it faces the same problem because it has continued to operate on the same principles enshrined in the 1993 legislation.

There are, therefore, only two logical ways forward. The first is to settle the debate about women’s ordination first and to end the ‘period of reception’ either by agreeing that all must accept the ordination of women or (which is, of course, improbable) by agreeing to abandon the project and return to the pre-1993 position. Such a move would be unwelcome for a number of reasons, not least that it would delay the consecration of women bishops and embroil the church in virtually a sectarian battle. No one in their right mind would want this!

The second option, however, which the church seems tacitly to accept, is that as in 1993 provision must be made for both viewpoints. The problem, of course, is that the actual legislation on the table would only do this in a limited way which denies the reality.

One of the arguments put forward by those who insist on this limited provision is that the bishop must be allowed to be a ‘real’ bishop, whose ministry must therefore apply of necessity to all those within the diocese.

The problem with this argument, however, is that in 1993 the Church of England decided that a priest would not henceforth be someone whose ministry would necessarily apply to everyone within the church. This was essential to enabling the ordination of women to take place and it was accepted as part of the provision.

This was, as we have observed, an innovation, but it was one with which the church was formally prepared to live, and it was something which everyone in the church has therefore had to accept since 1993.

Now that we are considering the consecration of women as bishops, it is time to consider also the logical extension not only of women’s ordination but of the innovation that went with it — that the church must allow for those who could not accept the ministry of women bishops, even whilst all parties accept that this is a church which consecrates women.

In other words, just as we have had a new model of priestly ministry, we need a new model of episcopal ministry. And specifically, just as we have had a ‘voluntarist’ model of priestly ministry in this regard, so we must have a ‘voluntarist’ model of episcopal ministry.

This is something which the Anglo-Catholic opponents of women bishops have long recognized and advocated. (The evangelicals have been much slower to realize its importance.) What I am arguing here is that it is something which the supporters of women bishops should also recognize unless they wish to rewrite the history of the past eighteen years.

The Church of England was able to introduce the ordination of women because it was prepared to change its understanding of the acceptablility of its orders — and all those who are now members of the Church of England ought to acknowledge that reality. Whether they are enthusiasts for, or opponents of, women’s ordination and consecration, they have opted into a church which has, out of practical necessity, modified its understanding of ministry.

That it needs to do so again with regard to women bishops may be unwelcome to some, but it ought not to be a surprise.

John Richardson
20 May 2010

While you're here, why not join my Facebook group, Fans of the Thirty-nine Articles?

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.

Fans of the Thirty-nine Articles

While you're here, why not join my Facebook group, Fans of the Thirty-nine Articles?

"A group for members of the Church of England, and the worldwide Anglican Communion, who think the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion published in 1562 are a great summary of the core doctrines which reformed the Church of England then and which ought to be at the foundation of its teaching and preaching today."


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.

Time to End the Nanny Church?

One of the frequent complaints of the last decade or more has been about the growth of the ‘nanny state’. At one level, this reflects a concern about intrusion, for example into childcare arrangements of the kind that used to be entirely informal between friends. At another level, it is about the imposition of restrictions ostensibly on the grounds of concern about standards or safety but which actually prevent people taking risks or accepting limitations they themselves are willing to accept.

Both concerns come back to the same thing: the conflict between social responsibility and personal liberty. And part of the problem is that these are profound issues. It is easy to poke fun at the ‘’elf and safety’ brigade, but there is nothing funny about a serious injury or accident. And yet the risk-free life is impossible and in any case the desire for personal liberty surely reflects something important about the human character.

Fundamentally, we ought to be free.

This is why freedom movements have always attracted a following and why nationalism is such a powerful political force. It is also why, when Jesus said, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free,” it created such controversy, for his audience thought they already were free (cf Jn 8:32-33).

Freedom has to do with maturity, with growing up. This is why the Apostle Paul wrote as he did to the Galatian churches:

... as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. ² He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. ³ So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. ⁴ But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, ⁵ to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. (Gal 4:1-5)

To become a ‘son of God’ is not only to enter into a spiritual relationship with God, but to attain a spiritual status as an ‘adult’: “Brothers,” Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults” — or as the AV put it, “in understanding, be men.”

To be held back from proper maturity is, we say, to be ‘infantilized’. The sad truth, however, is that there are few organizations more infantilizing than the Church, and few Churches more infantilizing than the Church of England.

The Church of England is a ‘nanny church’ which just loves to tell its children what to do.

Let me give a small example. To give out the bread and wine at Holy Communion is relatively straightforward. It is not, to be honest, a highly skilled task. This, though, is what the ‘Chelmsford File’ which gives official directions for those in the Diocese of Chelmsford, has to say on the matter:

Lay Assistance at Holy Communion can be authorised by the Bishop but no one else. The Bishop will need to know that the incumbent and the Parochial Church Council support the application. Persons so nominated should be mature and of good standing. Cards of Authorisation will be issued by the Bishop and the permission will need to be reviewed when a new incumbent arrives.

There is more, but that should give you the idea. Basically, I cannot give anyone in the parishes in which I serve permission to help me give out communion — the Bishop has to do it. Moreover, I can’t just phone him up and OK it, I have to get the Parochial Church Council to ratify the request. And when the request has been made, this person cannot actually help me until we have received a certificate back from the Bishop. (One church I know has a wall covered with them in its church offices.) Moreover, when a new incumbent is installed, someone has to ‘review’ all the permissions.

It is, of course, as daft as the law which now requires us to display no smoking signs outside churches in which no one smokes. It is beyond parody, but more seriously it is beyond the gospel. The truth of the gospel is supposed to have made us free, but if I were Jewish I would have more freedom in this regard under the Law of Moses than I would under the laws of the Church of England and the Diocese of Chelmsford.

And there is a more serious aspect to this when it comes to mission and ministry. In our area, for example, we have been told to come up with a deanery mission strategy. But we cannot control our budget and we cannot control our staff — the ‘quota’ we pay to diocesan central funds is set by the diocesan centre, and is increasingly beyond the reach of dwindling congregations of elderly people. But we are rated as a ‘rich’ area, so the level is set accordingly. At the same time, however, the number of clergy we are allowed to deploy is restricted to what we are allowed by the bishops, so we cannot increase the workforce who might increase the membership.

Now at this point someone will say, “Why not use laypeople more?”

Friend, they won’t even allow you to give out bread and wine at communion without a certificate from the bishop! How do you think they’ll react when you want to use laypeople to do anything serious?

The Church of England seems to be stuck in some Freudian ‘warp’, telling others what to do, and being told what to do in its turn. Is it surprising that when the ‘system’ is resisted, this resistance often takes the form of ‘teenage rebellion’, rather than mature process?

Yet it could, and should, be very different. The Church of England is rich in resources and rich in resourceful people. It has an extraordinary ‘presence in every place’. It ought to be full of empowered people, equipped and enabled to live for Christ and to witness to him. Instead, it hobbles along, getting older and smaller by the day.

Is it worth rescuing? Yes, for sure! Can it be rescued? Of that, I am much less certain.

John Richardson
19 May 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.

Marriage: the model of a mystery

“Holy matrimony,” declares the Book of Common Prayer, “is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.”

The Church of England thus upholds three important truths about marriage. First, it is a good thing — indeed, it is more than a good thing, it is an “honourable” thing. Coming at a time when the Church had for centuries advocated the virtues of celibacy and virginity, this was a profound affirmation of the truth of 1 Timothy 4:4, that “everything God created is good”. As the same passage observes, it is the demons who are behind doctrines that forbid marriage (4:3), for that is to negate something which is part of God’s original ‘good’ in creation.

The latter point is also affirmed by the Prayer Book, for it says secondly that marriage belongs to “the time of man’s innocency”. The first human couple were not merely made by God but, in Jesus’ own words, “joined” by him. In the Garden, God created not just humankind but human marriage. Moreover, as Jesus’ teaching on the subject shows, that original creation was meant to be determinative for the future and to be exemplified in the Church.

This is also, of course, why the gospel standard for marriage is much higher than that set by the law; for marriage originally belongs in the time of ‘innocency’, and is therefore somewhat unsuited for this sinful age. The law allowed for divorce because, as Christ put it, “your hearts were hard” — meaning not that people were uncaring, but that they were unbelieving (cf Mk 16:14). To undertake marriage Christianly, therefore, is to enter into a world were the law is not enough: the world of turning the other cheek or going the extra mile.

And this brings us to our third point, which is that although marriage is made for our blessing, it is not made for our convenience, for marriage finds its origin not in sociology but theology, and not in the doctrine of man (and our needs), nor even in the doctrine of God (and his nature), but in the twin doctrines of creation and salvation.

Marriage, as the Prayer Book says, is a sign: “signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.” Another way of thinking about it is as an image: imaging to us the relationship between the Creator God and his creation, and the Redeemer God and his redeemed.

These two ideas converge in Isaiah 54:5:

For your Maker is your husband — the Lord Almighty is his name— the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth.

And what the Old Testament foretells, the New Testament reveals in the person of Christ:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (Eph 5:25-27)

In Christ, we experience the ‘new creation’ (2 Cor 5:17), and at the end of time (as at the end of our Scriptures) the new heavens and the new earth are ushered in with the marriage of Christ and the Church. Hence we read,

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. (Rev 21:2)

Indeed, we have an echo here of the presentation of Eve to Adam in the Garden, for just as the man greeted his bride then with an acclamation, so a heavenly voice hails the arrival of the Church:

Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. (Rev 21:3, cf Gen 2:23)

In Scripture, however, the salvation of humankind is termed a ‘mystery’, and it is so on two levels. There is, on the one hand, the ‘mystery’ of how it will be accomplished — the mystery which, like the grace of God itself,

... has now been revealed through the appearing of our Saviour, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. (2 Tim 1:10, cf 1 Tim 3:16; Col 4:3, etc)

But there is still the mystery of why. Why did God choose to save us, and to save us this way? More profoundly, why did God create the world in the knowledge that it would have to be redeemed? And why does God love us enough to do this for us?

Indeed, we may say there is a third mystery, which is the mystery of love itself. What is the nature of God’s love for us? But to this third mystery, the Bible, insofar as it gives an answer at all, points us to the “way of a man with a maiden” (Prov 13:19), for our Maker is our husband, says the Lord of Hosts. And although the history of the interpretation of the Song of Songs is littered with imaginative allegorizing, we are surely right to see in it some indication of the nature of the relationship we have with God, insofar as it is paralleled by the relationship between human lovers.

The Bible, however, does not separate such love from commitment and identity. On the one hand, those who are married enter a one-flesh union (Gen 2:24, contra 1 Cor 6:16). On the other hand, the required context for sexual expression is finally, and firmly, marital. When God ‘spreads his garment’ over the sexually mature Israel in Ezekiel 16:8, he enters into a covenant (Heb: berith) with her. And this covenanting is an integral part of marriage (cf Prov 2:17; Mal 2:13). Israel’s unfaithfulness towards God is adulterous, not only because of the change in the object of her affections, but because of her departure from the covenant God has made with her.

Human marriage, therefore, must be ‘covenantal’ — and indeed, unbreakably covenantal — if it is to model the divine mystery of love.

Yet the followers of Christ have a long track record of finding this hard to accept. The response of the first disciples to Christ’s own teaching on divorce was almost one of despondency: “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10). And the Apostle Paul was so conscious of this difficulty that in writing to the Corinthians he was careful to point out that this teaching was directly from the Lord himself (cf 1 Cor 7:10-11).

But today there is another difficulty for us in addition to the requirement of covenant faithfulness, and that is in the imposition of rôles, for in marriage the husband is to his wife as Christ is to the Church, and not vice-versa, and the wife is to her husband as the Church is to Christ, and not vice-versa.

All the arguing (and there is plenty) that Ephesians 5:21a is a call for mutal submission (“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”) does not alter this one whit. There is a sense in which we are called to mutual submission, insofar as we are to “honour one another” above ourselves (Rom 12:10). But the husband ‘honours’ his wife in one way, and the wife ‘honours’ her husband in another.

He honours her by exercising a love which is consciously modelled on Christ’s sacrificial love for the Church, giving himself for her so as to give to her.

She honours him with a love that is equally modelled consciously on the Church’s love for Christ, by her submission to her husband in “all things” (Eph 5:24, or as we might say “in all respects”, cf 2 Cor 6:4; 11:6).

To say, however, that Ephesians calls for ‘mutual submission’ between husbands and wives is to subvert the text, which states specifically that the husband is the ‘head’ (as Christ is to the Church), and the wife is the ‘body’ (as the Church is to Christ). These are not simply ‘opposite versions of the same thing’. Nor are they interchangeable. To be a husband is to be the head. To be a wife is to be the body. These rôles are given, not chosen.

A good husband is thus one who loves his wife as Christ loves the Church. But one who does not do this is still the husband of his wife and the ‘head’ in their symbiotic life as ‘one flesh’. And a wife who does not submit to her husband is, nevertheless, still the ‘body’ in that union.

The principle at stake is moreover, nothing less than, as stated in the Prayer Book, that marriage signifies “the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.” By introducing divorce, we have already vitiated that symbolism. Marriage becomes something we control (what man puts asunder). By denying the Scriptural distinction of rôles — the identification of the husband as the Christ-like ‘head’ who is the object of his wife’s submission, and the wife as the Church-like ‘body’, who is the object of her husband’s self-sacrifice — we assert our control even further, both over marriage and over Scripture itself, and further obscure both the sign and the thing signified.

This issue confronts us today as the Christian view of marriage has always confronted Christians. Like the first disciples (though for different reasons), we are tempted to respond, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Perhaps, however, our problem is not with marriage, much less with understanding the biblical text, but with trusting God.

John Richardson
15 May 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.

Could we have an English National Party?

Isn't it interesting how 'wrong' that question feels? Yet in the wake of the defeat of the BNP in Barking - Nick Griffin failing to secure a seat and all the BNP Councillors losing theirs - it is a question I think worth asking, especially as many Christians seem to hate the BNP with a vengeance (and there's an issue worth debating as well).

Those same Christians seem to have no problem in principle with the Scottish, Welsh or Irish nationalist parties (respectively SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein), but I suspect it is not just the nature of the BNP's policies, but something about our whole psyche as a nation which makes an ENP a 'no go area' even before we've considered the policy. Is this simply a national sense of guilt - and if it is, why do we have it in such huge doses when other nations don't? Or is there something inherently wrong about nationalism which we allow the other nationalist parties to get away with because they aren't English?

So my question is really two-fold. Could an English National Party be so constructed as to be a good thing? And are the other UK nationalist parties really as innocent as we suppose?

As a PS, the BNP actually got more votes than any of the other nationalist parties!

As a PPS, I am a great fan of the Union, and for that reason not a fan at all of the nationalist parties, but if that's the way we're going ...

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.

A very Anglican prayer for election day

Adapted from the BCP Communion service:

We beseech thee, Almighty God, to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors; and specially thy Servant ELIZABETH our Queen; that under her we may be godly and quietly governed: And grant unto her whole Council, and to all that are put in authority under her, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue. Amen

And while you're about it, say one for Lord Justice Laws.

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.

Bad Vestments

But good for a laugh ...

... and don't forget to look through the archive!

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.

Neil Baldwin: a blast from the past - and the present!

I have just been phoned up by Neil Baldwin. If you know the name, you'll know what I'm talking about. If you don't, you might read this article about Neil here.

Neil was a familiar figure at Keele University during my student days, but like a lot of people, I didn't take his claims about whom he knew too seriously. Would that I had!

I was impressed to hear he had just celebrated 50 years at Keele, and would add my voice to support for him receiving an honorary degree. In return, might like to put me on his list of 'very nice men'.

And Neil, if you read this, it was good to hear from you, even if your football team did recently beat the team from my old theological college 15-2.

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.

Ban on the burka reveals our fear of Islam

For what it is worth, I think Belgium's decision to ban the burka, and France's consideration of the same says very little about a European concern for women's liberation and an awful lot about our fear of Islam.

At the same time, I don't think this is, as Amnesty International have apparently argued, an issue to be resolved by an appeal to human rights or religious freedom (though essentially I'm personally committed to both).

Why do I think it is a move based on fear? Well, imagine a situation where a slightly loopy man decided not to go out in public except wearing a Zorro mask. We would think him sad, he would probably be jeered at by children, and he might cause some alarm in banks. But we would not expect to see the police arrest him, or want Parliament to be bothered with legislation to prevent his eccentricity.

Now our modern advocates of secularism are all for reminding us that religious people are all 'fruit loops' who believe in a 'magical friend' or something similar, and that our outlook is laughable and our influence is waning prior to our inevitable and much-to-be welcomed demise.

But surely what is sauce for the Christian goose (because that is where most of these remarks are directed) is equally sauce for the Muslim gander, the Jewish duck and so on?

In other words, Muslim women in burkas are just a gaggle of equally fruit-loopy people, who are just as much to be pitied as our hypothetical Zorro-mask wearer. And although we should perhaps, in the interests of public order, protect them from the jeers of children, we will have to work jolly hard (if we are secularists) not to despise them just a little bit for the folly of their own practices and the iniquity of them passing their empty notions onto their children.

But given that their ideas are stupid, their practices eccentric and their beliefs doomed to die out, what's Parliament got to do with it? A few more years, a bit more education and the burka will go the way of the Vestal Virgin's distinctive outfit.

That, at least, is what a confident secular society ought to think.

So why the need for a ban?

It is, I suggest, not because we feel sympathy for the women under the burkas. It is because we feel fear. And that is something worth a bit of self-examination.

John Richardson
1 May 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.