Phill Sacre

Tag: anglican

  • Liberalism and the Church

    I’ve just finished reading “Christianity and Liberalism” by J Gresham Machen. It was written nearly a century ago (1923) but it’s still an excellent book. He argues throughout the book (and, to my mind, demonstrates conclusively) that Liberalism – in the sense of liberal Christianity – is actually a different religion to Christianity. Given the age of the book it’s not surprising to find that some of the liberal beliefs he criticises are less relevant to the Liberalism of today. However, I think the points he makes about Christianity are very insightful – in particular I appreciated the first chapter on doctrine. It would be well worth investing your time in the book.

    So why do I write about it here? Well, reading the book got me thinking about the church today – in particular, the Church of England after the Pilling Report and the House of Bishops pastoral letter. Many people in the church who believe in same-sex marriage are questioning why they are essentially being forced to adopt a different position on this. Why is it that they are being held to a standard which they do not personally believe in?

    If you’ve been watching ‘Rev’, you’ll have seen the episode a few weeks ago where Adam Smallbone (the vicar) struggles with this issue – how to deal with the church’s official position on this even though he doesn’t actually believe in it.

    One thing which struck me – which I touched on last year – is that the question goes far deeper than beliefs about sexuality. The problem is fundamentally about the nature of the church. Is the church held together because it is an institution and nothing more? In other words, would it make sense for there to be Buddhists, Muslims and people of other faiths within the Church of England – simply because they were within the institution? Or, is there something doctrinally – i.e. some common beliefs – which unite the church?

    I think most people would agree that it wouldn’t make sense to have people of any religion within the Church of England – because the CofE is a Christian church. It is united around the gospel, around the Bible, around the historic Christian confessions of faith. What Machen would argue, however, is that Liberalism does not fall under that: Liberalism is a different religion from Christianity.

    Why is this significant regarding the CofE’s current situation? Because over the past few years the Church has basically brushed this question under the carpet. It has, to put it bluntly, ignored the question of what the Church of England actually is. This is no longer possible – the question must be confronted. Is the Church of England a Christian church in any meaningful sense? And if it is, what implications does that have?

    If the Church of England is to remain a Christian church, I believe it has some serious decisions to make over the next few years: what do its historic confessions of faith actually mean, and what does it mean to be part of the church now? We cannot be inclusive at any cost. The Pilling Report, I hope, will expose these kinds of questions – difficult though they may be – and force us to make some uncomfortable decisions.

  • Crossroads for the CofE

    Recently, former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey warned that the Church of England was in danger of dying out within a generation. (Synod has responded by “voting to set up a committee” – oh, how Anglican… at the same time, positive that the church is actively looking towards evangelism.)

    It seems to me that with this along with the Pilling Report shortly to be published as well as the move towards women bishops, the Church of England stands at something of a crossroads. The church faces the question: what is it that the Church of England is all about?

    This is a quote from the article I mentioned above:

    Archbishop Sentamu told the Synod: “Compared with evangelism everything else is like rearranging furniture when the house is on fire.

    “Tragically too often that is what we are doing – reorganising the structures, arguing over words and phrases, while the people of England are left floundering amid meaningless anxiety and despair.”

    I think he’s hit the nail bang on the head. “Rearranging furniture when the house is on fire” – exactly what I think is going on with the Pilling Report and, to a lesser extent, women bishops (see my previous post on last year’s women bishops vote for some more thoughts on that matter).

    I believe there are two competing narratives at play here. One is saying, “We’re losing numbers. Quick! – let’s get with the times. Culture is changing, let’s change with it. Let’s bring in women bishops, let’s bring in gay marriage – that will halt the decline and reverse the trend. People will flood back into church if it’s relevant to them.” That’s one narrative, a narrative which the Episcopal Church USA seems to have adopted.

    The other narrative is more like this: “We’re losing numbers. Quick! – we need to get back to what the church is all about, preaching the gospel. Offering salvation to sinners: Evangelism and the ministry of God’s word to his world – that’s the only thing which can halt the decline and bring people back into church”. In other words, basically what Archbishop John Sentamu said to General Synod.

    Judging by what’s happening to the Episcopal Church, it’s pretty clear that the first route will lead to the Church of England’s ultimate demise. That doesn’t bode well.

    But I prefer to see this more positively. I think this is a time for the Church of England to take stock: what is it we’re here for? What is the Church’s mission? The church has Five marks of mission, the first of which is: “To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom.” I hope and pray that the Church of England will rediscover its identity as an organisation which proclaims the good news of the Kingdom, and any furniture rearranging in the future can take a back seat.

  • Reflections on Women Bishops and the “No” Vote

    Now 24 hours has passed since the synod vote yesterday, and some of the dust is starting to settle, I thought it might be time to wade into the murky waters with my take on the whole matter. I’m honestly hoping not to upset anyone, although given how high the feelings seem to have run that may not be possible – so my apologies in advance!

    Let’s be honest: the vote yesterday was a no-win situation. For the ‘traditionalists’, i.e. those who do not want to see women bishops, the measure was insufficient: the protection built into the measure was not sufficient – it paved the way for problems in the future. I’m not a legal expert, but this is what the ‘no’ voters were saying. For those pro-women bishops, the measure was a last-ditch attempt to try and include traditionalists. Anything other than a ‘yes’ vote would be unnecessarily stalling the process for another few years – and in the process, making the Church of England looking like a misogynist, sexist and out-of-touch organisation. Female rights would be trampled on once again, and the church could never recover. In fact, I saw a few tweets on Twitter yesterday and today which were basically saying “The Church of England is finished”.

    There are a few things about all this that make me uncomfortable.

    (more…)

  • The Jeffrey John Fiasco

    I know that just about the world and his dog has been commenting on this recently, and I’m late to the party anyway, but I just wanted to add my two cents. I heard last week that Jeffrey John was reported to be thinking of suing the Church for discrimination.

    Now this was galling to me last week, but what pushed me to actually blog about it (I know, BLOGGING about it, can you believe!) was a lecture we had today on 1 Timothy 3.

    Let me try and explain: it’s nothing to do with Jeffrey John’s sexuality, or at least – it’s only indirectly related.

    The point is that he is wanting to sue the church for discrimination in not making him a bishop. Two things need to be said:

    1. Bringing lawsuits against believers in this manner is, I believe, prohibited by 1 Corinthians 6. What message does it send out to the world, let alone to the church?
    2. It seems to me that Dr John, by (contemplating) bringing this lawsuit, is denying the fact that there are people in the church who would be at all opposed to his appointment. In other words, hang the unity of the body of Christ – I want to be appointed a bishop. This leads onto the third thing.
    3. What’s the big deal about not being appointed a Bishop? Can one not serve God by being a dean? (To be honest I don’t really like the fact that he’s even a Dean but that’s another matter). The point is, he seems to be displaying a level of ambition which would make me question his motive for becoming a bishop. This is where 1 Timothy 3 comes in: apparently the word translated ‘sets his heart’ in the NIV in v1 has the meaning of over-ambition. The question is, does Jeffrey John want the office of Bishop, or the service?

    On that last point, the lecturer this morning quoted John Chrysostom. I can’t find the exact quote, but this seems relevant:

    That we may have glory with men, we lose ourselves with God. What profit in such honor? How self-evident its nothingness is! When you covet the episcopal rank, put in the other scale, the account to be rendered after this life. Weigh against it, the happiness of a life free from toil, take into account the different measure of the punishment. I mean, that even if you have sinned, but in your own person merely, you will have no such great punishment, nothing like it: but if you have sinned as bishop, you are lost. (Source)

    It seems to me that anyone who desires the post of a Bishop that much, to the point of suing the church about it, is not really Bishop material.