Tags

Not for the first time, I ended the day reflecting that the comments to this blog are often better than the posts. The comment on my post two days ago by Alys summed up a particular, and widespread point of view very well:
The Church Of England is dying and will soon be completely dead thanks to weak leadership, female ordination, watering down of scripture and the word of God, identity politics and failure to recognise that the more it attempts to berelevant the less appealing it becomes to what should be its core membership.
That puts in very understandable terms what I have not only often heard, but also read, indeed as I said in my response, I was reading something from the Restoration period recently saying much the same, leaving out, of course, the reference to women’s ordination. Much the same was said in the period marked by Wesley’s ministry. Christianity, or at least the Church, is always about to die, and the leadership is usually at fault. You can’t be surprised, look at that Peter fellow, he even denied knowing Jesus. Has there ever been a time when the leadership,of the Church has been held in universal, or near universal, high regard? As for watering down God’s words, how clear could he have made it that certain foods were. It to be eaten? That Paul fellow claimed to have had a vision to the contrary, but we have only his word for it, and even he was willing to admit circumcising might be necessary. Things change, sometimes even the Church leadership is willing to see the Holy Spirit at work, as the Council of Jerusalem did over diet.
I jest, a little, because in truth, there have been those from the beginning convinced that the Church was going to the dogs and that its leaders were rubbish. Even St John faced break away groups from his church who claimed to know better than he did what Christ meant. It is a permanent feature of Christian life and isn’t going to change any time soon this side of Christ’s coming again in glory.
What did intrigue me was the idea of “core” membership. That set me thinking and rereading. I could see only one “core” in the teaching of Jesus, and that was the Jews. There were many occasions when Jesus made it clear that the ‘bread’ was for the Chosen People. Even among them, Jesus’ “core” was considered odd – his tendency to dine with wine-bibbers, tax collectors and fallen women was not well-regarded by the “core” membership of the synagogues, any more than that same group welcomed the evangelism of the disciples.
A Church that takes Jesus seriously has only one core, I thought, sinners. That’s all of us, and for all its failings as an institution, as long as there are sinners, there will be a Church. It may be that those who have laboured in the vineyard all day will look askance at those who came in the last hour, even as the elder brother had his views about how their father had treated the prodigal. But that’s Christianity for you, all that gratiutous love and grace. As I have been given freely, so I have received, and so I will give, or try to to others. It isn’t just the comfortable and the established who need to feel the church is for them – it is those who think it isn’t. Perhaps they are the “core”? At any rate, there are more than enough lost sheep to keep the shepherds busy.
I can’t speak for Alys and her intended use of the phrase “core membership” but I took it to mean that social justice warriors and identity politics radicals should not try to hijack religion for their political agendas and gain. And if the Church is playing into such pressures then surely it is only emboldening the misuse of the Church or any religion for that matter to appease those who care little for religion but a lot for their particular cause. Maybe I’m wrong but I suppose only Alys can clarify her comment.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think you’re exactly right, Scoop; I believe you have understood Alys’ comment correctly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I do think there are two types of people commonly found in the pews today: those who come to be changed by the church and those who come to change the church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I said to Scoop, it’s news to me, never met one of them in any of the dozen or so churches I have been to. But who are this ‘core’?
LikeLike
I am a bit puzzled to be hne. I have not seen a single one of the type of people you mention in church. I do wonder whether you are tilting at windmills here. But maybe it is different in your church?
LikeLike
Could be. I remember that we had activist nuns that were always getting their hands slapped even when I joined the RCC. It’s gotten worse now and they have many more clergy joining their ranks where, at the time, it was only the rogue priests and bishops who followed their line of thinking. Bishops Bernardin, Untner and Weakland spring to mind. Its almost like a pandemic. A few caught the disease in the beginning but now a large number have been infected.
But then I am only guessing at what Alys meant anyway. Maybe Jock explained it better because it does seem to be a reordering of what comprises sin when most of us don’t want sin normalized but forgiven; or the seriousness of sin to be relegated to the ranks of the inconsequential.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can agree with that, but again, the problem is that society is not what it was back in the day, so to say, and it isn’t going to be, so what do we do about those who have been damaged through no fault of their own?
The hypocrisy of bishops who have gay boyfriends telling people who have been divorced that they cannot come to communion seems to cry to heaven!
LikeLike
I agree with that. The Church needs a good sweeping starting with the clergy if it is going to teach with any moral authority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that nail you just hit is suffering from concussion 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
I probably shouldn’t comment on this as I am not English and I don’t belong to the Church of England. But, because it is a ‘State Church’, whatever decision it makes, it is published around the world. So perhaps, in that context, I can share my thoughts.
There is an understanding, I suspect, that Christians have gone through formation, of one kind or another, to an adult understanding of Jesus and His teachings. We have learned ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’; every man is our brother; charity to others is both our duty and our privilege based on the bounty God has given us – and all the other lessons on how we are to act in the world around us at any given point in history. That the Church of England makes pronouncements about diversity, inclusivity, the need for change, and other such things, seems very much (at least to me, 4000 miles away and unaffected by such things) as ‘flag waving’. Very much a “Look at how wonderful we are” sort of thing that attempts to make the Church ‘relevant’. Not that old, stodgy Church your grannies belonged to – but the bright and shiny sparkly Church of what’s happening today!”
Anglican Churches here in the States don’t make pronouncements such as the Church of England does. I don’t need to know what the leadership of the Church thinks about diversity and inclusivity in order to follow, as best I can, the teachings of Jesus. They need to – and do – support me in doing that to best of my ability; they clarify for me where I might be going wrong in my understanding of the Godhead, they help me to stay grounded in the truth. If one is so trained and supported, the things that Jesus taught come automatically into play; what He taught was for all people for all time. Including these times.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah. The Church of What’s Happening Now: Remember Flip Wilson?
LikeLike
I am not a great fan of virtue signalling, but given that one of the criticisms sometimes made of the church here is that it has not been very inclusive, I can see why the (mainly white, mainly male) leadership felt it ought to say something. I’d be more impressed if they did it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, a great post. I really enjoy reading your thoughts. My two cents: I find on the Catholic side of things, people in our church seem to conflate certain issues the church should always be caring about with either the right or the left, and I think this is harmful. So Pope Benedict spoke out against abortion and emphasized distinctions in doctrine and he was labeled right-wing. Pope Francis speaks out about the environment and caring for the poor and he’s called left-wing or a socialist. It’s frustrating. The church is just the church. Read the parable of the Good Samaritan: that’s what we need to be doing at all levels of society. And that means asking the hard question, “How are we treating the marginalized? How are we as a global community treating the poor? Those who are gay? Are women treated with enough dignity in the church?” It’s important for us as Christians, I think, to see these as Gospel issues first and political ones second. If we do, we may or may not come out on the left or the right. But we’ll be closer at least to coming out on the side of Christ.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We are not only one the same page, but the same line of that page.
The culture war thing seems an American import. I care about abortion, passionately, and I care equally about climate change and the environment. Only to those who put the culture wars first are these things antithetical – well, that’s my take anyhow. xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, if you have to read about it and you have to think deeply about this, then you’re unlikely to ever understand what is meant by `core membership’.
It isn’t a term I had heard before, but it does fit quite nicely, so let’s use it.
Spelling it out in simple language, the `core membership’ are those people who are committed to the Lord, fully aware that they are sinners and that, through the atoning work of Christ at Calvary, they are forgiven sinners; `the wages of sin is death’ (Romans 3v23) `the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord’. They know that they are forgiven sinners, they hate their own sin and are doing their God-given best to put it behind them.
The `core membership’ are aware that their own sin is `exceedingly sinful’ and they do not try to re-define sin to make themselves less sinful in their own eyes.
Equally, what the `core membership’ do not want to see and hear is the `church leadership’ turning a blind eye to sin and reclassifying behaviour which we all know to be sinful as perfectly normal and not-at-all- sinful. They’ll walk out of the church if they hear the church leadership calling out people who get bothered by sin, accusing them of casting the first stone.
It isn’t rocket science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is the danger here, Jock, that we could miss the moving of the Spirit? It was not long ago that in my own church divorce was frowned on and divorcees made to feel unwelcome. Yet, before the twelfth/thirteenth century, no one got married in church. Was it wrong not to get married in church? Was it wrong to change that and get married there? The thing is that things do change, and if we insist they don’t. what happens then?
LikeLike
…. well, before you get onto LGBTQ+ or whatever, which is one if your favourite subjects, it’s a very good idea to consider what is OK / not OK for straight people.
Divorce is always an extremely serious matter and there are some divorces that are absolutely not OK; there are some divorcees who really ought to be made to feel very unwelcome.
I’m thinking of my own Sunday school teacher of when I was 12 – 14 years old, who looked like a very sincere Christian lady back then (that was late 70’s early 80’s) who knew an awful lot about the bible and who seemed very Spiritual. In the mid 90’s, she divorced her husband because he wasn’t `Spiritual’ enough for her. Actually, she left him and was quite shocked when he took the decision (his wife having walked out on him) to get the divorce through.
Not `spiritual’ enough means the following. He made a lot of money through property conveyancing (anyone in town who wanted to buy or sell a house did it through him). Because he was a reasonably rich man, he bought a nice large house with a great sea view. Up to the mid – 90’s, he had never denied her anything no matter how weird or wacky, but he drew the line when she wanted to turn the east wing of the house into a missionary school for Chinese children – he valued his privacy and wanted a little bit of peace and quiet in the evenings. This was basically what she meant when she claimed that he wasn’t `Spiritual’ enough – he wasn’t sufficiently Spiritual to go along with every one of her hare-brained schemes.
Admittedly he wasn’t super-spiritual. For him, the part of church which he enjoyed the most was playing his drums at the evening service (which probably tells you a lot about what the evening service was like).
Anyway, a lot of upset caused by a `super-Christian’ who believed that divorce was, in principle a bad thing, but was able to come up with wacky exceptions to let her off the hook.
In Scripture, there is no such thing as a `legal separation’ which is not a divorce, which is basically what she wanted.
I personally think that this lady should have politely been invited to never darken the doors of the church again. As far as I am concerned, the church really ought to take a very dim view of divorce – and some divorces are simply just not on.
A footnote: the man in question was quite shocked by his son’s reaction. His son said something along the lines of `oh get real, dad; everybody is doing it nowadays’, which basically tells you an awful lot about the depravity and standards of the younger generation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All of which I agree with, but is some way from the old positing still held by the RCC that all divorce is wrong and that divorced people who remarry without an annulment can’t take communion. As a woman whose husband committed adultery then left her, I am conscious that my second marriage would not be recognised as such and that I could not take communion under such a rule.
LikeLiked by 1 person
well, more fool you for taking the Catholic church seriously as an expression of the Christian faith …..
LikeLike
Isn’t that rather harsh Jock? I can’t really say I feel qualified to judge that more than a billion people are not in the church. Maybe I am too mindful that as I judge so will I be judged.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah yes – the not judging business again (when God Most High commands us to use the grey matter He has given us to make judgements all the time) and the argument-by-numbers (when we’re told that `the remnant’ is 7000 in all of Israel).
There are probably Christians within the Catholic church, but as far as I am concerned this is very much despite of rather than because of their church teaching.
I don’t know very much about it – just enough to know that it looked like bad news – so I decided to avoid it.
There is something very, very strange about a priesthood who, on the one hand have decided against marriage and decided to remain celibate themselves and who on the other hand seem qualified to tell people how to get married and to instruct people on the dos and don’ts of married life and who, from this position, think they’re qualified to pontificate on subjects such as bringing up children, divorce, etc … etc …..
There is actually something very weird about taking a vow of celibacy in the first place.
LikeLike
I agree about celibacy and a compulsory vow. I am not sure about your literalism Jock. Jesus did not spend much time with the core membership of the synagogue, so I wonder if only 7000 are to be saved …?
You are a father, I think. If your child did not turn out to be the right sort of Christian, would you condemn him to eternal torment? I cannot think it of you. Why should I believe God is less loving as a father than you would be?
LikeLike
1) Nothing to do with literalism – I was quoting Scripture – the quote usually used to indicate that believers are a tiny number – even among the church-goers.
2) Nothing to do with condemning people. I think you’re being deliberately misunderstanding here.
The Catholic church just doesn’t look right and therefore I avoid it. Who is within the Saviour’s family and who isn’t is entirely up to God and not me – there was nothing at all in what I wrote to indicate that I took a different view.
Jesus was reaching out to people who were not in `the church’ and when he reached out, peoples lives were transformed. This is the bit that you seem to be missing.
I think it is because of people like you within the church that I prefer to avoid the church.
LikeLike
That’s fine Jock. Jesus founded a church. You don’t agree. No doubt one day we shall see these things clearly.
LikeLike
well – I never suggested that Jesus didn’t found a church – so you’re reading in what you want to read in.
LikeLike
As we all do Jock. The God I have known all my life is a loving Father. Your experience of a loving earthly father must be different from mine if your version condemns most people to eternal torment. Or do you not mean that?
LikeLike
Jess – nope – I don’t mean that and you know it.
I believe that there are many people who never darken the doors of a church and who will see life, but (of course) I believe that it is ultimately up to God and I can’t see into the hearts and minds of others.
But as far as the Catholic Church goes, my view of it over the last three or four years has become particularly jaundiced due to the PiS-artists that we now have in power here, who seem genuinely fascist and nasty and who are rabid ultra-Catholics.
Of course, this isn’t the whole of the CC, but it is a very ugly side that has been accommodated and has thrived.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really was unsure Jock, sometimes I find it hard to read you, but that’s because we start from different experiences
.
I am very far from holding any candle for the RCC, but again, men I respect, like C451 and Scoop are part of it, so there must be something more than you and I see. Sounds like you see a part which those of us outside Eastern Europe may not.
LikeLike
What brand of Christianity do you most identify with? I don’t want to put a label on you, but would you consider yourself more Fundamentalist, Baptist, Lutheran?
LikeLike
To be honest, I don’t know – and it is a very good question. My grandfather came to faith at the age of 28 years old back in 1923 through the Salvation Army. I do have a `soft spot’ for the Salvation Army and if there was a gun at my head forcing me to affiliate with something I would probably go with them. When my mother was a young girl (back in the 1940’s) her father sent her to the Salvation Army Sunday school in the village.
During my childhood, we moved to a town where the only thing available was Church of Scotland, so we went there, but it was somewhat stuffy and it felt very `middle class’ (the down-side of moving to a nice middle-class seaside town is that the churches were all `middle class’). The church where I felt most comfortable (during my student days in the 1980’s) was a Church of Scotland where the sermons were terrific.
One church where I felt really at home (when I was working in Ireland) was the baptist church, which had an awful lot of life about it, where there were people from all walks of life and I felt as if I was in the presence of people who were genuinely saved.
In Scotland there was always a class issue and I suspect that to a large extent it was the same in England for the C. of E. – the Church of Scotland always felt very `middle class’ and it wouldn’t have surprised me if they had opened their worship with the great hymn by W.S. Gilbert `Bow ye lower middle classes; bow ye tradesmen, bow ye masses’.
My grandparents were fishermen and therefore would never darken the doors of a C. of S.; for them it was Salvation Army, Faith Mission, Baptist, etc …..
While I very strongly appreciated the quality of the sermons at the C. of S. which I attended as a student, I think I’d probably feel much, much more comfortable in one of the fishermen’s meeting halls from the towns and villages that my grandparents came from.
But we don’t have anything like that where I am living right now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always end up wearing two hats in these CofE questions: Christian and Englishman Usually both hats are offended these days. The Church of England is an organ of the state and it has experienced what all the other organs have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas – yes, it is the organs that are the problem. As Woody Allen once said, `you cannot touch my brain, it is my second favourite organ’.
LikeLike
As a dissenter I think I will always have mixed feelings about the Church of England. At any rate our institutions have long been sock, but Blair did a lot of damage to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas – I don’t fully remember everything you have said about your background. I know that you are living and working in England now. Was there ever a class issue connected with the Church of England?
With us (Scotland) the Church of Scotland was always looked down upon because it was considered to be for the middle classes e,g, the fish merchants would belong to C. of S., while the fishermen would studiously avoid C. of S. and would be affiliated to other groups, such as Faith Mission, Baptist, Brethern, etc …. I don’t think they saw themselves as `dissenters’ and I don’t think they saw their fellowships as `non conformist’.
When I went to university, I was amazed to find something decent within the C. of S. and it was a C. of S. fellowship that I attended during these years.
It now seems to me that this was an experimental error – the C. of S. seems to me (in general) worth avoiding and the fishermen were basically right in this.
On the other side, I look at the authors of books and material that I have found useful. While I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t think much of an Anglican church service (I attended one in the Anglican church in Stockholm back in 2000 and it was horrible) I have found that several of the good authors have a C. of E. affiliation (e.g. C.K. Barrett, JAT Robinson and some others).
LikeLike
I have both good and bad experiences of the Church of England, and I also have objections to what it has become vis a vis its involvement in our political life. I vacillate, but in my angry moods (which NEO knows about well), I favour disestablishing it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s in the nature of a state church Nicholas. I would rather have a state where the church has a recognised presence than one where it is a sect hidden in a corner. xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
As in all things, it is both the office and the people. I am a monarchist and my feelings are similar there: the monarchy is good for us and Her Majesty is a wonderful monarch, but what shall it be in years to come, and what has already been done to it? I’m afraid I tend to be a pessimist in all things these days. I see only decay and death.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have had good and bad monarchs, and I sincerely believe that the Coronation service effects the monarch for the good. I can sympathise Nicholas, I think we all, or many of us, feel a sense of pessimism. I find daily prayer my great consolation xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas (second attempt – I wrote this before but the comment got eaten up).
I can’t remember everything about your background. How much experience do you have of the Church of England?
I don’t (of course) know about C. of E., but I know that there was a major class issue in Scotland. As a result, the fishermen (my background) never went to the C. of S., which was basically for the middle classes (e.g. the fish merchants). The fishermen went to their own meeting halls (Baptist, Faith Mission, Brethern, etc …). But I don’t think they would have seen themselves as `dissenters’ or `non-conformist’ or put such labels on themselves.
When I was a student, I attended a C. of S. church and was (in fact) very surprised to find something decent going on within the C. of S.. I now consider that to have been an experimental error.
Nevertheless, while by nature I’m averse to C. of E. / C. of S. I note with interest that some of the most interesting books that I have read have been written by authors associated with these churches. For example, `The Trinitarian Faith’ by TF Torrance (C of S) is well worth reading; C.K Barrett (C. of E) and also JAT Robinson’s `Priority of John’ (C. of E.).
So even if the church services seem often to be content free and even though these churches bypass the problem of sin by re-defining it so that it is no longer exceedingly sinful, nevertheless they do seem to produce good theologians whose works are very helpful.
LikeLike