The Church in Wales is foundering.
Having accepted that people are doing 'different things on a Sunday which means that they are not going to turn up at Church', the Archbishop of Wales, John Davies, told BBC Wales that he has brought in a PR company to help deliver its message.
He said it is "a way of engaging people's minds and hearts with what lies at the very centre of the Gospel and that's about bringing life and purpose and compassion and goodness into the communities where we live....Social media explaining that message, social media expressing something about the compassion that lies at the heart of the Gospel, I think is very, very worthwhile indeed."
The compassion that lies at the heart of the Gospel has been perverted in the Church in Wales resulting in a message that seeks to give people what they want now rather than what they need for the promise of eternal life.
Will social media provide the answer? I doubt it. Many of the Twitter messages I see are self-promoting, ingratiating or simply promoting a secular cause.
Take this blatant feminist tweet from Llandaff diocese: "Worth mentioning again....@ChurchinWales will now have gender parity on the Bench of Bishops...and we're extremely proud of this!"
That is an entirely secular view of equality of opportunity in the workplace, completely devoid of any spirituality.
A tweet from Archdeacon Sue: "Special day as our new Bishop @cherry_vann is Consecrated at Brecon Cathedral. Praying that God will bless Cherry, her partner Wendy and all the people of the @MonmouthDCO. May we be a faithful people praising God, proclaiming the Good News and serving with love @ChurchinWales.
The Church in Wales refused to comment on Cherry Vann being in a same sex partnered relationship when she was appointed bishop-elect of Monmouth. Now her same sex relationship has become a matter for celebration as though the office of bishop were some sort episcopal duo.
Not to be outdone an Area Dean in the diocese of Monmouth tweeted: "Definitely an occasion for white SCP stole today for consecration of @cherry_vann. The prayers & love of the Llandaff & Monmouth Chapter of SCP are with Cherry & Wendy today. Look forward to spotting other SCP clergy #wearthebadge @scpeurope @MissionMonmouth @MonmouthDCO."
He tweeted: "My response to CofE latest pastoral guidelines and my expression of solidarity on the day of Cherry’s consecration as a bishop in the Church of God!"
 |
| Source: Twitter |
Is this "the compassion that lies at the heart of the Gospel" we can expect to be reading about on social media? It is nothing more than an extended ploy driven by self interested parties to push through same sex marriage in church.
After Bishop Pain retired, it was reported that clergy and laity had expressed hopes that his successor would be someone from outside of the Diocese of Monmouth. Not only did they get their wish but Cherry Vann just happened to be on site for the announcement of her appointment giving the impression that the appointment of the first lesbian bishop had been carefully choreographed in secret.
After Bishop Pain retired, it was reported that clergy and laity had expressed hopes that his successor would be someone from outside of the Diocese of Monmouth. Not only did they get their wish but Cherry Vann just happened to be on site for the announcement of her appointment giving the impression that the appointment of the first lesbian bishop had been carefully choreographed in secret.
At her consecration Cherry Vann invited a friend, the Rev'd Robert Lawrence, a member of the Society of St Francis from the Diocese of Newcastle, to preach.
"A bishop is a point of unity," he said, "(or so I was always told), except that in the church today we seem to find disunity when (say) the bishop is a woman in a church where not everyone accepts the leadership of women, or when the bishop is in a same sex civil partnership in a church where not everyone accepts gay relationships, and where the bishop is English in a Welsh diocese."
In other words, you are on the wrong side if you disagree with the ordination of women, do not accept a bishop who is in a same sex civil partnership or, oddly, a bishop who is English in a Welsh diocese!
Many clergy will not have heard Mr Lawrence's admonishment. They have already left along with tens of thousands of Anglican laity leaving a compliant rump to do it their way.
Many clergy will not have heard Mr Lawrence's admonishment. They have already left along with tens of thousands of Anglican laity leaving a compliant rump to do it their way.
Piloted by an incompetent bench of bishops it is no surprise that the Church in Wales is foundering.
Postscripts
[28.01.2020]
The Church in Wales is wasting no time in using social media to spread its message of the gospel according to LGBT. Tweeted this morning: "Watch out for this interview with the new Bishop of Monmouth, Cherry Vann, on @BBCWalesToday at lunchtime and 6.30pm today @cherry_vann."
Early morning viewers will have already seen the recently consecrated bishop of Monmouth explaining on BBC Wales News that she will not campaign for same-sex marriage in the Church in Wales and hoped her supporters would not be disappointed.
The former Archdeacon of Rochdale said she was “overwhelmed by the warm welcome her and her partner Wendy had been given and hoped to send a positive message to people who feel rejected by the church.”
She was not speaking of the thousands of Anglicans abandoned by their Church but for gay people who she claims feel rejected. Bishop Vann continued: "I hope that it is a sign of hope. There are a lot of gay people in our schools, in our colleges and universities, out there in society who think that the church is against them, that they don't have a place in the church.
"I hope that being here as a gay person, in a same-sex relationship, will give those people hope and help them to see that this is something that the church embraces and is able to celebrate along with any other faithful committed relationship."
The message is clear. Cherry Vann has no need to campaign. The bench has it in hand.
[31.01.2020]
In response to a charge by Peter Tatchell of "SELFISH HYPOCRITE!" after the bishop of Monmouth said she won't campaign for same-sex marriage in the church, the Church in Wales was quick to respond with "Bishop Vann said she was undecided about same-sex marriage, not that she opposed it."
Tatchell claimed that she [Vann] only got to be a priest & bishop thanks to equality struggles of other LGBT+ Christians. Now she says she opposes equal marriage within the church.
Postscripts
[28.01.2020]
The Church in Wales is wasting no time in using social media to spread its message of the gospel according to LGBT. Tweeted this morning: "Watch out for this interview with the new Bishop of Monmouth, Cherry Vann, on @BBCWalesToday at lunchtime and 6.30pm today @cherry_vann."
Early morning viewers will have already seen the recently consecrated bishop of Monmouth explaining on BBC Wales News that she will not campaign for same-sex marriage in the Church in Wales and hoped her supporters would not be disappointed.
The former Archdeacon of Rochdale said she was “overwhelmed by the warm welcome her and her partner Wendy had been given and hoped to send a positive message to people who feel rejected by the church.”
She was not speaking of the thousands of Anglicans abandoned by their Church but for gay people who she claims feel rejected. Bishop Vann continued: "I hope that it is a sign of hope. There are a lot of gay people in our schools, in our colleges and universities, out there in society who think that the church is against them, that they don't have a place in the church.
"I hope that being here as a gay person, in a same-sex relationship, will give those people hope and help them to see that this is something that the church embraces and is able to celebrate along with any other faithful committed relationship."
The message is clear. Cherry Vann has no need to campaign. The bench has it in hand.
[31.01.2020]
In response to a charge by Peter Tatchell of "SELFISH HYPOCRITE!" after the bishop of Monmouth said she won't campaign for same-sex marriage in the church, the Church in Wales was quick to respond with "Bishop Vann said she was undecided about same-sex marriage, not that she opposed it."
Tatchell claimed that she [Vann] only got to be a priest & bishop thanks to equality struggles of other LGBT+ Christians. Now she says she opposes equal marriage within the church.
The cathedral was not "packed" as official news reports. In fact, whole rows of seats in the cathedral were empty. A poor show of clergy too - especially from Monmouth diocese. I counted 5 clergy from Monmouth. 5!!! Though some were not robed and sitting with the congregation. Spectating from afar? No surprise that the rainbow Area Dean was there robed up with his 6 coloured cufflinks in full view, but it was a big surprise to me that one particular curate in the Bassaleg was! What was he doing there?! He often appears in Lowlights asking questions of the Governing Body, and invariably speaks on sexuality, and yet there he is participating in the consecration service of the new bishop.
ReplyDeleteI heard the promises at the cathedral that the new bishop of Monmouth will work positively with those who disagree with her. It's even been reported by the BBC. We shall see. But for now, it seems that clergy voted with their feet. It will be interesting to see who is (and isn't) at the enthronement.
Mustard Seed
A cogent and apposite opinion piece. It seems not even to occur to the preacher at the consecration that a bishop who from the very outset clearly isn't going to be a focus of unity might, ipso facto, be a unsuitable appointment.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is when will Archbishop Justin Welby be revoking his invitation to Lambeth 2020 for the Welsh Bishops? In January 2020, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali challenged Archbishop-elect Stephen Cottrell (The letter can be read on the Gafcon website) to come clean on his stance on the Lambeth 1998 resolutions on human sexuality. Resolution 1.10d states: "This conference cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions". In that the Welsh bishops have now decided to go it alone, the Archbishop of Canterbury should cut them loose and cast them into outer darkness. As a result of Saturday's debacle, I know of 5 persons who have now left the Church in Wales. How many others have made a similar decision? His Gracelessness can employ as many PR companies as he chooses; those who have left will not be coming back.
ReplyDeleteWhat made Saturday's event a real mockery was the boast by the CiW that the newly consecrated Bishop would be presented with a Bible. Why, in God's name? Not one of them believes anything it says. May I suggest that at future services in the Church in Wales the Sun or the Star newspapers be read instead of the Bible. At least the Bishops will have something in common with what is read - utter sleaze!
As for the Reverend Robert Lawrence's assertion about bishops being points of unity, I think the guy must be living in cloud-cuckoo land. In the last thirty years, when has a Welsh bishop ever given a moment's thought to unity? They get some hair-brained idea into their heads and off they run with it; and to hell with the consequences. They have lied, prevaricated, and manipulated just to get their own way; and the chickens are coming home to roost.
Seymour
Good point Seymour. Presenting her with a Bible was laughable. Perhaps I copy of the lectionary (which has the offensive passages removed) would have been more appropriate.
ReplyDeletePostie
Presumably it was symbolic of the fact that she has never read it - or of the fact that she NEEDS to read it
DeleteJustin Welby and the rest of you might as well sing for your supper. Switch on your hearing aids everyone: "We continue as we please. This court will be what we want it to be" www.scandal and offence.com
ReplyDeleteHenry Paget
In fairness to her, Bishop Vann spoke graciously and eirenically in an interview by a BBC 'Wales Today' reporter yesterday, affirming that she wasn't by instinct a campaigner and, though it might disappoint some people, she didn't propose to become a militant activist in the Welsh Anglican province on the issue of same-gender intimate relationships.
ReplyDeleteAn argument can now be made that the issue of the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate is now, for good or ill, settled within much of the Anglican Communion - the Welsh province included - and that now dissentients should either accept it or seek a spiritual home elsewhere.
But the same isn't yet true in respect of the Church's understanding of, and approach to the acceptance of, same-gender intimate relationships, and the appointment as bishop of someone in a same-sex civil partnership seems to me open only to one interpretation: that it's a calculated attempt to force the issue in one particular direction. Which makes a farce of any talk of seeking 'discernment' of the guidance of the Spirit of God in this matter.
In the light of that I think Ancient Briton's correct: Bishop Vann doesn't have to campaign, because others are doing the campaigning already.
@John Ellis: "dissentients should either accept it or seek a spiritual home elsewhere".
DeleteThat is the expressed attitude of the Archdeacon of Llandaff, Peggy Jackson, and many like her.
There is no spiritual home elsewhere for those of us who are Anglican by conviction.
That is the cruelty of the women's movement, no compassion, no thought for anyone but themselves and their supporters. They simply couldn't care less.
They may be a majority in the Church in Wales and in some other provinces but they are a minority otherwise.
@AncientBriton: Facts have to be faced, however painfully. At the heart of the matter is the question of sacramental security. If one has doubts about the capacity of females to receive and transmit the grace of holy orders -- or to put it more strongly, if one believes that they are incapable of so doing -- then one can only remain in a woman-ordaining province of the Anglican Communion for as long as one can be certain that the (male) priest from whom one receives the sacraments has been ordained by a male bishop who was himself ordained and consecrated by male bishops. At the moment this may be relatively easy -- more so in England with its network of flying bishops and "resolution" parishes than in Wales or Scotland -- but as time goes on it will become increasingly difficult, and ultimately impossible. In fact, however, this "mechanical" or "pipeline" view of ordination only tells half the story. Your local vicar presides at the Eucharist not (just) because the special power of turning bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ was given to him at his ordination, but because he is delegated to do so by the local successor to the Apostles, the "Father in God" to all the faithful in his diocese. (This is why in every traditional eucharistic rite, such as the one in the 1984 CinW Prayer Book, the Bishop is commemorated by name.) If the person occupying this role is a woman -- and one believes that women are incapable of doing so except in a purely administrative capacity -- it affects every eucharistic celebration in that diocese. And if -- as is now the case in the CinW -- half the province's episcopate consists of people about whom there is doubt (or worse) about whether they are in fact bishops or just laywomen in bishop's clothing, it is surely time to admit defeat and look elsewhere. Much prayer needed!
DeleteThank you, Matthew, you hit the nail bang on its head. I had a similar conversation a few weeks ago with people in our congregation, who said that they would not attend anything the bishop was present at, if the bishops went ahead and consecrated a lesbian bishop. As a result of that conversation five members of our church no longer wish to have an association with the Church in Wales.
DeleteThe Eucharist isn't a private members club. The congregation, as you say, are in communion with their priest, who is in communion with the diocesan bishop, who is communion with other bishops, who are in communion with the apostles, who are in communion with Christ.
When congregants say that they are in communion with their priest, but not in communion with the diocesan bishop; then clearly the link between Christ and the local church is broken.
This is why you would expect bishops to be very cautious in their actions, especially when their actions run contrary to the scriptures and the traditional teaching of the Church.
Personally, I have come to the end of the road with the Church in Wales; and leaving is the only option. When I became a member of the CiW, I thought my spiritual journey had come to its conclusion; now the good Lord bids me to up sticks and move on for my own sanity.
Seymour
@Seymour: I wonder where you will go. It possibly depends on where you live.
DeleteThe Church is the people, neither a building nor a Parish nor a Diocese nor a Province.
DeleteWhere two or more people are gathered together.....
I gave up on the Church in Wales years ago, taking myself and my cheque book elsewhere.
The sooner the Church in Wales collapses in on itself and the swamp implodes, the better.
Hi Matthew, I think you need to read the 39 Articles on the consecration of the bread and wine (Article 28).
Delete@ Ancient Briton:
Delete'There is no spiritual home elsewhere for those of us who are Anglican by conviction.'
I understand and entirely respect the position in which you've found yourself since 'that decision' was reached. Your post calls to mind the moving words of a Church Army officer - a woman, as it happened - at the time of the C of E's decision to ordain women to the priesthood, which she simply couldn't in conscience accept. I think it was in a report or a letter in the 'Church Times'.
She'd been talking about her dilemma to a close and old friend, and the friend said to her 'I really don't know what you'll do now, because it's always seemed to me that you're a bit like a stick of rock: 'Church of England' runs through you from top to bottom, and it's so much a part of your identity that I just can't imagine you without it'. From your post I get the sense that you too feel something of that sort.
It was somewhat easier for me. I've commented elsewhere on these threads that I grew up in a nominally 'C of E' home that was in reality entirely secular; it was just that my mother especially had the assumption still common among people who'd grown up in the early part of the 20th century that 'everyone's got to be something, religiously speaking', and C of E by default was what 'we' were. But for me that meant nothing, and my move to faith in my mid-teens was a conscious decision which felt like a genuine μετάνοια, "a transformative change of heart, a spiritual conversion" as Wikipedia explains the word. I started the exploration in the Anglican church partly because of my mum's vague but stubborn sense that we were C of E, but mainly because the local Anglican parish church was the place of worship closest to our home. When you're starting from scratch, which church you choose to engage doesn't seem to matter.
But that at least meant, for me, that Anglicanism didn't run through my being like the words on a stick of rock; it was rather a leap of faith which right from the start I knew might prove a false lead. For many years it did make sense for me, and I don't for a moment regret that time. But when the point came when it no longer did so, I was able to let it go.
So my position's nearer to those expressed by Seymour and '1662'. But for those who feel for Anglicanism a 'love that will not let me go' the present situation's truly awful.
A bit like you, John, I came to Anglicanism at a later stage - during my university years; and when I did, it felt that my spiritual life made sense. The bishops back then would never have ventured where this lot have gone. Scripture, tradition and reason lived in harmony with each other, and Anglicanism made sense from a theological perspective too. I have never wanted to belong to the "Anglo-Catholic", "Evangelical" or "Liberal" camps, which means that, in general, I have got along with people, and have friends who embrace varying traditions.
DeleteLike you, my heart goes out to those cradle Anglicans who now have to watch their Church being destroyed by people who do not care what their actions are doing, nor the impact that their actions have on the lives of others.
I have watched friends of mine embrace Roman Catholicism because, like Ancient Briton and many others in the same boat as him, they could not consider the Church they grew up in as their spiritual home any longer. That I had a spiritual life before Anglicanism I can than God that I know there is a life beyond Anglicanism. I pray that those who have come, or are coming to the end of their journey in the Church in Wales will have the courage to let go. The Lord will catch you; and you will wonder why you didn't let go sooner.
Seymour
So much of how you describe your own spiritual journey coincides with my own experience. You do indeed need the courage 'to let go', while remaining unreservedly grateful for what you received in earlier years. And I am unconditionally grateful.
DeleteThe fly in that ointment is that I'm not sure that the Lord has actually 'caught me', because I seem to have ended up as what I now describe as a 'sympathetic agnostic'. The essentials of the faith still hold me, but I've no longer any sense of how I could or should live it out in an ecclesial community.
My 'other half' remains an Anglican and is largely untouched by the trends which gnaw at me me. But then, unlike her, I studied theology for my degree and my sense is that doing so has seriously influenced my perspective! Is scholarly ignorance bliss?!
She has broken the rules and so has the Church in Wales. What's new then?
ReplyDeleteElfed Ellis Owen
Bishop Vann's assurance that she will not be a campaigner for same sex marriage is deceit and hypocrisy in one. She must realise that by her very appointment as Bishop in a same sex relationship she has already done the thing which will best promote it. Does she think we're all stupid?
ReplyDeleteLW
PP. I am raising questions here, not any criticism or asking for any in return. My curiosity gives question more than answers. Are women really the problem? For me is acceptance tantermount to heresy? Would receiving a sacrament from a women, as I have, on many occasions does it bring me outside of the plan of salvation, communion or fellowship? I hope not. For me, the basis of my faith is in Christ, does a women standing at the Altar break my fellowship with Him?
ReplyDeleteWhatever reasons are raised against women in holy orders,the scriptures always point us to one mediator between God and man, Christ Himself.
https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/2-5.htm
The apostolic succession view is one that has been debated widely, accepted by some denominations and not by others. So, what is the key scriptural authority for the succession? Is their specific passages that tell us this rule?
When the Reformation occurred did those new Churches become outside the succession and in doing so become apostate? Or, when Henry VIII broke with Rome, was the succession broken?
The questions I raise are just that, questions curiosities that help understand the ongoing thinking. Not a means to cause negative criticism of me or others.
As for the new Bishop. We have many male priests in orders who are in gay relationships do we raise similar concerns? If a lesbian cannot be in orders, then neither can a gay man. Or, is just a double blow for women only?
In a recent Church Times article the support for the Bishop of Grantham who is in a Civil Partnership was overwhelming and acceptance. One might say its because he is celibate? The rationale for which is one of conscious. But who really would want to police this or even intrude. In Wales we know what the rule is and that appears to be one of acceptance.
On the flip side we have recently had the CofE scandal of the former Bishop of Gloucester a gay man. The CiW had its own fair share of episcopal scandals, did those who were give the sacraments by them or, were those ordained tainted or, their orders lessened or,put them outside God's favour?
Whatever our views, concerns, hurt, anger or criticism the question is: Where is God in the detail?
Whatever personal views held by me or those posting, I respect the concerns But the seriousness in our Church at this time needs us to stay, raise issues, listen, argue but ultimately seek Christ in the detail, Not, the devil!
@PP There is no point in staying when (1) the bishops of the Church in Wales are not listening, (2) instead of being the focus for unity (the primary role of a bishop - take a look at the Ordinal), they seek to cause the greatest offence, and as a result, bring about disunity; and (3) loyalty to the Lord and his teaching is the last thing on their minds.
DeleteIn the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, I attended a midweek Eucharist at which a passage from John 17 was the Gospel reading. In it, Jesus prayed for his followers because the world would hate them for following him. Instead of accepting that as the price for following Jesus, the Bench of Charlatans want to be loved. They have turfed Jesus out of HIS Church - you can forget the Feast of Christ the King - Jesus is no King in the Church in Wales. His teaching has been thrown aside in favour of secular humanism, and I'm afraid that I was not baptized into humanism. As a friend of mine often says, "Jesus is either Lord of all, or he is no Lord at all!"
What did the Bench of Charlatans do in the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity? Oh yes, they consecrated a lesbian bishop. Jesus gave us a wonderful rule of thumb - "By their fruits you will know them." The Charlatans knew that they were going against the resolutions of Lambeth; they knew that the GAFCON bishops would immediately cut off communion with the Church in Wales: yet rather than act toward unity, they chose the path of disunity. By their fruits...I know that they are charlatans in fancy dress; they are hirelings, and they care nothing for the flock.
Let me say further, if I were the lesbian bishop, knowing that my consecration would cause harm, hurt and disunity, I would have walked away from it. That she chose the mitre over unity makes her the sixth charlatan of the Church in Wales.
As @1662 says above: The sooner the Church in Wales collapses in on itself and the swamp implodes, the better.
Where I go from here, I really don't know; but one thing I do know - The Lord is my Shepherd, therefore I will want for nothing.
Seymour
PP. @Seymour, I sincerely understand your logic in this, clearly explained.
DeleteIf Lambeth and GAFCON are a clear break then it is obvious that the dye is cast.
Only time will tell if any significant 'fallout' will drive change or challenge.
Liberal ecclesiastical Darleks have only one message for traditionalists within the Church in Wales: "We will exterminate you".
DeleteLeave me alone
As the likelihood of churches having a male priest throughout the coming years diminishes very greatly, all of us who have not been convinced that female ordination is God-willed, will be forced to make a crucial decision. Away from towns there is no church alternative, apart from the chapels. Do we travel, say 25 miles, to a church that does have a male priest or to a Roman Catholic or even Orthodox church? or do we, reluctantly, continue attending our usual church, now with a female cleric in charge? The first may not be an option for some. Do we stay away from church attendance altogether? Surely that cannot be the right option. It is very difficult. Yet is attending a female-led service, with all our reservations, worse than absenting ourselves from the Church community? Rob
ReplyDeleteRob, I faced the dilemma that you so clearly set out right from the outset a quarter of a century ago.
DeleteBecause for me the main issue wasn't the maleness or otherwise of any individual priest but rather that Anglicanism had opted, unilaterally, to do something which the Church universal didn't do. Ordaining women to the priesthood seemed to me to be on a par with an Anglican province deciding on its own to declare, say, Bonhoeffer's 'Letters and Papers from Prison' to be sacred scripture and reading them like an epistle at the Eucharist. I knew, once the decision had been made, that it was time to go.
But go where? Rome never really seemed an option because to join that communion without embracing the doctrine of the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome would have been dishonest to God, them and me. I actively and over some time explored the various 'continuing' Anglican groups, but found them dominated by petty ecclesiastical prima donnas and prone in consequence to repeated schisms which rendered already small congregations smaller still.
For quite a long time I worshipped with an English language Orthodox congregation, but there found ethnicity and a sort of siege mentality a real deterrent; really hard to be Orthodox in Britain without diving into Greekness, Russian-ness, &c - they're cultural outposts of the homeland as well as local Christian congregations. An attempt to found 'western rite' Orthodox congregations successfully pioneered in the USA for ex-Anglicans by the Antiochene patriarchate was launched here - with two Eucaristic rites, one based on the BCP - but that was soon torpedoed by the Greeks and Russian jurisdictions so effectively that all the congregations in the end abandoned it and adopted the Byzantine rite. It felt a bit of a hostile environment - there a bit under suffrance and with a degree of suspicion that never quite dissipated.
In the end I gave up, and I suppose I've returned to 'the great unchurched', with the ghostly shades of my departed relatives whispering 'Told you no good would come of that religion stuff ...'
@John Ellis: I agree with everything you say about the sad deficiencies of Anglicanism since the ordination of women (see my comment above), and although I've heard of equally discouraging experiences in a few parishes I've been happily Orthodox since 2008. A lot depends on the community, but there are a few general points it's perhaps worth making. (1) No-one should consider becoming Orthodox (or RC, or Methodist or Quaker for that matter) for purely negative reasons, i.e. because their present denomination no longer delivers the goods. There must be a positive attraction, even perhaps a "vocation". (2) Unlike Rome and the CinW, there is no rule in Orthodoxy about church attendance. I still find it quite strange that evidently devout and committed laypeople often attend Saturday Vespers instead of the Sunday Liturgy or don't turn up at either for weeks on end, and that depending on circumstances this can go for clergy as well as for laity. Your (relatively?) local Orthodox parish may not be the right one for you, but a once-a-month (or less frequent) pilgrimage to a more congenial one might be an option. (3) Attempts to reconstruct a "western Orthodox" liturgical tradition 1000 years since the Great Schism can be no more successful than the RC Church's post-Vatican 2 endeavours to wind the clock back to what they're supposed to have done in the "early Church", whenever and whatever that was. What you encounter in an Orthodox church may seem "foreign" if you're a native of the British Isles, but the difference between the culture of this country and that of Greece or Russia is no greater than between (say) that of Uganda and that of Finland, both of which do exactly the same stuff. (4) If the preponderance of expats in some congregations promotes a "siege mentality" this is probably quite superficial, and will break down as you get to know the individuals. I'm sorry to have gone on at length, but hope this may be of some help.
Delete"No-one should consider becoming Orthodox (or RC, or Methodist or Quaker for that matter) for purely negative reasons, i.e. because their present denomination no longer delivers the goods. There must be a positive attraction."
DeleteExactly Matthew.
I think both of you make entirely valid points. But - speaking entirely from the context of my personal pilgrimage - I was for thirty years at home with what Anglicanism once was. Or, maybe, with what I then assumed it to be
DeleteBut once it clearly ceased to be what (I'd believed) it once was. I started to look for something more authentic. Maybe that might indeed have been a 'purely negative reason'. I'll ponder what you've posted, and maybe respond again after I've better digested it.
@John Ellis: My own situation was not dissimilar. I was fortunate that Orthodox seeds had been sown quite early on, so the progression was relatively painless. Oremus pro invicem.
DeleteThe latest from the Church of England: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/church-of-england-sorry-for-saying-sex-is-only-for-married-heterosexuals/ar-BBZv8l6?ocid=spartanntp
ReplyDeleteSeymour
"Mr Welby and Mr Sentamu". By a strange twist this piece of journalistic inelegance succeeds in putting them in their proper place, i.e. not on the episcopal bench.
DeleteI actually think it is considered grammatically correct, in written material, to refer to Clergy as "Mr ..." (etc) rather than "The Rev ...", although this usage might be regarded as obvsolete by many.
ReplyDeleteGenerally bishops have been styled 'Bishop X' or 'Archbishop X' - at least since the custom of conferring honorary academic doctorates on Anglican bishops who hadn't happened to properly earn one quite rightly lapsed.
DeleteI think the recent practice of referring to them as 'Mister'simply reflects the ongoing secularization of our society.
Not CinW (though some parishes may be involved), but possibly of interest: https://tinyurl.com/yx3w8nzp
ReplyDeleteSecular organizations and venues will presumably be no less selective as to whom they invite to speak as Christian ones sometimes are. I don't see anything wrong in that.
DeleteI'm amazed to see that two of the people commenting above, and who comment regularly on this blog, actually left the Church in Wales, one twelve years ago and the other 25 years ago. Yet they still try to push their own agendas and criticise those who have been elected and consecrated to the episcopacy in the Church in Wales, and those who try to serve faithfully as her priests, regardless of gender. In contrast, Baptist train fan thank you for your common sense and theological breadth of understanding.
ReplyDeletePilgrim
You don't lose your interest simply because you've departed in despair!
DeleteIt seems to me that "Matthew" so far from "pushing his own agenda" was offering helpful advice for those who are bewildered by the present position and might wish to follow him into Orthodoxy.
DeleteOld Nick
Oh dear. Getting under one's skin are we? You will realise therefore the only remedy my dear 'pilgrim'.
DeleteLeave me alone - or else.
I don't think @Pilgrim gets the seriousness of the situation. Friends of mine have a second home in Florida, USA. When they turned up at the local church, which belonged to ACNA; they were greeted warmly and courteously, invited to stay for coffee after the service and then, the Parish Administrator asked to see them in private. The inquisition soon began. Where did they hail from? To which province did they belong? Who confirmed them? Were their views on various Christian topics "orthodox" or "unorthodox"? When it emerged that they had a "live and let live" outlook on life, they were kindly pointed in the direction of the local TEC congregation. This is the direction in which the Bench of Charlatans are taking people, and Joe Public is walking into it with a blindfold on. Everyone will need to carry their confirmation certificates with them to prove their orthodox credentials and lineage.
DeleteAnother friend of mine joined the Roman Catholic Church as soon as the Ordinariate was opened by Pope Benedict XVI. The entire congregation to which he belonged in London went over en bloc with their priest. Their priest, at that stage, would ask to see the confirmation certificate of any who wished to join the congregation. If the person had been confirmed by a woman bishop - being in London, they would have visitors from the world over - he insisted that they had to be re-confirmed by the flying bishop.
We are now well beyond women bishops; the Church is dealing with bishops who are
at best heterodox, and at worst, heretical. They have departed from the apostolic kerygma in order to plough their own furrows, and appear acceptable to society.
Whether you like it or not, @Pilgrim, the Church in Wales could have the kindest, most loving, gentle, encouraging, inspiring, hard-working and generous priests going, but they are licensed by the Bishop; and if the bishop is viewed by the Universal Church as suspect, then that priest has a share in that bishop's wickedness. It is not me saying it: Scripture says it - but then in the uber-liberal Church in Wales Scripture doesn't count for much, does it?
Seymour
Serving the Church in Wales and serving God have become two very different things.
DeleteUnder --Barry Morgan and his successors the Church in Wales has become an heretical swamp of filth and irrelevance.
An attendance figure fast plummeting to the 20,000 mark says it all.
PP. I have to agree with Baptist he makes an important point.
ReplyDeleteReading the Monmouth Dio blog (link in CiW web/Monmouth) it appears that our new bishop has hit the ground running getting to know the terrain. Arranging meetings/Eucharists/Luncheon in each of the Archdeaconries, inviting churches and non church goers to meet her. Planned school visit to Osbaston/Monmouth after the tragic loss of the little boy to support the staff, parents and children. And she hasn't been enthroned yet! That has to be seen as being a Bishop of unity!
Her recent sermon in the cathedral last weekend was one of gentleness, encouraging and inspiring.We'll received by all. Time for healing, listening and encouraging would not be a wrong move by all.
PP. 'Universal Church' bit confused here. Surely this means 'every' Christian denomination across the globe? If not, then all not in 'the Catholic fold' are by default, not in fellowship with Christ!
ReplyDeleteThis stance reminds me of Jesus'words to the Pharisees "white wash tombs.." bright and shining on the outside, dead and decaying on the inside. Jesus did not come to set up an exclusive club or, am I wrong?
I'll try a response, as in an earlier post I used the phrase 'Church universal', though maybe I'm not the only one to have done so in what's become an interestingly long thread.
DeleteWithin Anglicanism - at least the Anglicanism that I first learned and experienced as an enquirer and subsequently a neophyte in the early '60s - 'universal Church' once did have a narrower meaning than 'every Christian denomination across the globe'. In origin it sprang from the distinctively Anglo-Catholic way of thinking about the Church, and Anglican evangelicals always looked askance at it; but certainly in the post-war years that narrower meaning was much more widely shared and accepted. Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, the first Archbishop of Canterbury that I can remember, always an enthusiastic polemicist and certainly no Anglo-Catholic, used to argue it regularly in his apologia for Anglicanism.
His position was that Anglicanism was an authentic expression of the Catholic Church because (a) Anglicans read and acknowledge the canonicity of the scriptures of the Catholic Church; (b) Anglicans believe and recite the creeds of the Catholic Church and (c) Anglicans have continued the Catholic Church's sacred ministry of a bishops pastoring a diocese assisted by the priests and deacons whom he ordains and commissions in their function.
And he maintained that those basic essentials are fundamental within the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Especially as much of the Church worldwide not only doesn't believe in the episcopal passing-on of Apostolic Succession but doesn't even have bishops! And those of us in that camp would be incensed to be told that we are not "real Christians" nor part of the Church Universal.
ReplyDeleteBaptist Trainfan, if you knew your Church history you would know that even if a baptism was administered by a heretic, providing the baptism was administered "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" you would not be required to be baptized again. Your baptism might be considered to be "irregular", but it would definitely not be "invalid". Since baptism is the vehicle by which we come to be "in Christ", i.e. Christian, no-one within the Episcoplian community would have the audacity to declare you or any other non-Episcopalian, "not a real Christian".
DeleteThe problem lies in that as a non-Episcopalian, you will never grasp the sense of outrage and hurt that is going on within the Anglican Episcopalian community. Just imagine the President of the Baptist Union announcing that baptism by immersion is old hat, and from this point on, Baptist churches need to get rid of it. I suspect most Baptist churches would prefer to get rid of the President of the Baptist Union first.
For us Anglicans, certain things are said and promised at the consecration of a bishop. They promise that they believe "that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ"; similarly, they promise to be a "diligent minister the Word of God, proclaiming the Gospel and teaching the Christian Faith". Yet they teach what Scripture does not contain. They promise that they will "guard their people, and nourish them out of the riches of God's grace". Yet they couldn't give a damn about their people. Like the hirelings that they are, they allow error to infiltrate the Church, and they do nothing to stop it; in fact, they actively encourage it.
Seymour
@ Seymour:
Delete'The problem lies in that as a non-Episcopalian, you will never grasp the sense of outrage and hurt that is going on within the Anglican Episcopalian community.'
You sum up my own sentiments aptly, though to a consderable degree I think that I've got over the worst of the outrage and hurt by now.
And I think that your comparison with 'the President of the Baptist Union announcing that baptism by immersion is old hat' is a thoroughly apposite one in terms of trying to explain to an evidently sympathetic Baptist why the reaction from some erstwhile Anglicans - and some 'still hanging on in there' - has been what it is.
You may well be right that I cannot really get the sense of outrage you feel (although I was raised in the CofE). Two points of correction though:
ReplyDelete1. The "leader" of the Baptists is actually the General Secretary, although s/he does not have the juridical power of an Archbishop. The President in actual fact is a yearly appointment, much as (say) the Moderator of a Reformed denomination might be.
2. Baptists (and Evangelicals in general) would regard baptism as important but not as "the vehicle by which we come to be "in Christ", i.e. Christian". We would say that what is important is some kind of profession of faith; we do not believe that baptism confers divine grace, except as an act of obedience to Christ. Rather, we say that it is an outward sign of inner grace that has already been conferred through faith. Thus the "efficacy" of baptism doesn't come into the picture.
Baptist Trainfan, there are none so blind as those who will not see!
DeleteSeymour
You both highlight one of the distinctive differences between the Catholic and the Reformed understandings around the nature of sacraments. The Reformed tradition in Britain sees sacraments as what the Zurich reformer Ulrich Zwingli described as 'bare signs'. And that looks to me, from what he's said, to be how Baptist Trainfan sees them too.
DeleteWhereas the Catholic view, while also seeing the sacraments as 'signs', is that they're signs which effect - anot merely represent - what they symbolize. Human analogies can never be really adequate in speaking of divine action; but in the spirit of St Anselm's 'fides quaerens intellectum' I'll venture a couple of analogies.
In the UK it's customary for the royal standard to be flown over the residence which the monarch is using at the time. But the standard has no real bearing on the fact that the monarch is staying in that property; s/he could be 'just as truly there' if the standard weren't flown. It merely symbolizes the fact of the royal presence. The Reformed view of the sacraments is something akin to that.
I have a little electric device with which I trim my beard, which operates from a battery which now and then has to be charged up from the mains. When I charge it, a small green light appears, not on the device itself, but on the plug which goes into the mains socket. The light has nothing to do with the process of charging, which takes place within the device itself. The light merely demonstrates that charging is taking place.
Like any analogy it's imperfect, but I think it's indicative. The royal standard has no direct bearing on the monarch's presence in the building. It just symbolizes the fact that s/he's presently dwelling there. The green light on my plug, on the other hand, effects what it symbolizes: the electricity is flowing through the plug and the batteries in my device are being charged up.
Both theories around the sacraments are intellectually consistent. But very different attitudes emerge dependent on which one you happen to hold. Over fifty years ago I was walking past the former Heol y Crwys Eglwys Bresbyteraidd Cymru in Cardiff - these days, I notice, rather resplendently converted into a Hindu temple! - and seeing in the gutter a scattering of bread cubes, clearly 'left-overs' from their communion. Quite logical from the Reformed perspective to do that - they're merely 'bare signs'. But even so, I experienced a sense of shock because in my Christian tradition doing that would be unthinkable. It felt all the worse in light of the fact that rain had started to fall and the bread cubes were swiftly turning into a mush in the gutter in water streaked with the irridescence of motor oil. Different theologies produce different perceptions around reverence and propriety.
Methodists say that their theology is primarily expressed in their hymns. I think that's considerably true of the Catholic tradition as well, though it's not a point often made. To get a sense of the Catholic understanding of the sacraments expressed in devotional song and poetry, Baptist Trainfan might find the 11th century hymn 'Hoste dum victo triumphans' - translated into English 'When the patriarch was returning' - interesting. It has the advantage of having been composed before mediaeval Latin scholasticism got going and before transubstantiation had been conjectured. It only fully relates to Eucharistic belief, but it gives a taste of the traditional Catholic understanding and piety and the theology of the Eucharist inevitably echoes the theology of the Incarnation. The text of the hymn in English is readily accessible on line.
@John Ellis: And the difference between (both Roman and Anglo-?) Catholic and Orthodox understandings, perhaps. There is a useful passage (too long to quote here) in Alexander Schmemann's "The Eucharist" (SVS Press 1988) in which he contrasts the western tendency to regard the sacraments as something sui generis, "entirely apart from the natural and even from the spiritual world" (citing Anscar Vonier, "The Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist"), where the connection between the matter of the sacrament and what it conveys isn't always apparent, with the Orthodox understanding of them as "a revelation of the genuine nature of creation, of the world, which, however much it has fallen as 'this world', will remain God's world, awaiting salvation, healing and transfiguration in a new earth and a new heaven ... a revelation of the sacramentality of creation itself". But maybe this understanding has now begun to influence western thinking as well, although I haven't noticed a successful realisation of Vatican 2's suggestion that the bread used at the Eucharist ought to look a bit more like the stuff on the kitchen table (I paraphrase the original, a copy of which I no longer possess).
Delete'The sacraments entirely apart from...the spiritual world', apparently state these unheard of writers. If the Eucharist is anything it's the reverse: try reading Newman instead, especially his views on the reserved sacrament!
DeleteRob
John: thank you for your understanding! I think that most Baptists would indeed hold to a Zwinglian view of the sacraments - indeed there is a tradition within the denomination which baulks at the very word "sacrament" and prefers to use "ordinance" - i.e. something which our Lord commanded us to do. As it happens I wouldn't quite toe that line, as I believe that something does happen, that some grace of God is conferred on the participant, both in the Eucharist and in baptism (which, remember, in our tradition, is only appropriate for those who have made a conscious decision to follow Christ). However that "something" is not conferred by the mere act of being baptised or taking Communion; rather it comes from the obedience being shown in so doing.
Delete@ Rob:
DeleteAlexander Schmemann doesn't at all merit the accusation of being an 'unheard-of writer; he is - or was, he died in the '80s - a prolific liturgical, theological and devotional teacher and author. Although ethnically Russian, he spent most of his life in France and then the USA as a seminary lecturer.
But you have to venture into the world of Orthodox theology and devotion to discover him, and there's no higher and longer-established intellectual and spiritual wall than the one which exists between the Christian east and the Christian west.
@ Baptist Trainfan:
Your personal understanding of the divine presence in the context of the Eucharist sounds to me pretty close to the view usually termed 'receptionism', which the late Dr C.B. Moss defined as "the theory that we receive the Body and Blood of Christ when we receive the bread and wine, but they are not identified with the bread and wine, which are not changed". It teaches that "the sacramental gift is received by faith".
In Anglicanism it's the view which seems to have been broadly held by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and by the late 16th century English theologian Richard Hooker.
@ Matthew:
I think you rightly point to differences in the Roman and the Orthodox undersandings of the Eucharist and that one of these is the Orthodox tendency to view the Eucharist, once the Holy Spirit descends on the elements in response to the Church's prayer, as a foretaste of the redemption of the entire natural creation, as part of the atoning work of Christ. That's a view which I've never encountered in western Eucharistic devotional thought, but I don't think the differences between Rome and Constantinople in terms of Eucharistic theology much resemble those between Rome and the Reformed tradition.
But I take your point that Vatican II did appear to suggest that 'the bread used at the Eucharist ought to look a bit more like the stuff on the kitchen table', but that it seems to have had minimal actual impact. Though I do recall once watching a televised RC Mass in which real loaves were utilized - clearly leavened - and at the fraction were torn apart by the celebrant with a vigour that left me wondering just how far the crumbs might have scattered. If memory serves, this was a Jesuit church ... as perhaps you might expect!
Many thanks, @ John Ellis, for your response. (1) I think you may be a little pessimistic about the supposed "wall" between east and west; Schmemann has certainly been heard of and possibly even read by some less insular Anglicans and RCs. (2) Oh, the awful irreverences perpetrated in some circles in the name of liturgical renewal! Almost as bad as the kind of thing you mention is the use of outsize "concelebration hosts", which when elevated make the sacred rite seem a parody of itself, suggesting the giant bow-tie or giant shoes of a clown (but perhaps that's just my warped imagination). It's a pity that the 19th century ritualists were so insistent on introducing unleavened wafers; it takes a certain amount of mental contortion to recognise them as bread, and to get the point about the transfiguration of this world in all its materiality. (Btw, this rather dated text is worth reading: google "Orthodoxy and the Conversion of England by the Rev’d Derwas J. Chitty".) (3) Half the trouble in present-day western Christendom is that people are in too much of a hurry. Tradition doesn't move forward by revolution, only by evolution.
Delete@ Matthew:
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am over-pessimistic about 'the wall'; but it just struck me that Rob had evidently never heard of Fr Schmemann and but for my explorations of Orthodoxy neither would I have done. His name and his writings were previously quite unknown to me. Which prompted me to think how much east and west seem to live in silos.
I agree entirely with your third point. That's why I've always thought that the Church in Wales's earliest ventures into liturgical revision from the mid-1960s onward into the early '70s were so apposite. They pruned out the sixteenth century verbosity of the BCP which, in respect of the Eucharist, had in any case ceased to reflect Anglicanism's developed mind, and tried to recover the basic 'shape' of the liturgy; but they did so while carefully preserving so much of the familiar words and phrases and without any rush into using contemporary language. I'm still convinced that this was the reason why the revised liturgies were so readily accepted in local congregations; I remember much anticipatory grumbling but virtually no hostility once the new liturgies actually came into use.
As I recall, this was considerably due to the genius of the secretary of the provincial liturgical commission at the time, who was a real liturgical scholar. His name might have been Parry - memory fades! - but he was certainly rector of Llandinam and Chancellor of Bangor cathedral. But he'd retired by the mid-1970s, and I recall thinking the following revision of the Eucharistic rite in 1984 pretty dire when compared to its predecessor!
Each revision of the Eucharist has deteriorated more, leaving us with the present unsatsfactory one. The writers must have tin ears.
ReplyDeleteRob
@ Rob:
DeleteI moved away from Wales in the summer of 1984, just before the new liturgy of that year came into use, and I lost touch with subsequent liturgical changes in the C in W.
But I was of course still around when the '84 rites were published in advance of authorization, and overall they struck me as maladroit and leaden when compared with what we'd previously been using. I tried to find out why it was felt necessary to produce a further revision when the experimental rites had been in use for less than two decades; I thought that a rite needs to be used and prayed for considerably longer than that before change should be contemplated again.
The only answer I got was that the previous rites were authorized as experimental and provisional, and that therefore they (a) couldn't be permitted to become permanent and (b) any new rite must be significantly different from them in its particulars.
I couldn't make any sense of this rationale, which seemed to make internal ecclesiastical legalism the master of the Church's decision-making rather than its servant. And I still can't.
I've long since disposed of my copies of both the blue book and such modern language efforts as were authorised as alternatives the order in the dreadful green book, but from memory I quite agree with both the two previous comments. Another disaster was the eucharistic lectionary in that book with its "themes" for the green Sundays, an idea it copied from the 1984 Alternative Service Book of the CofE. Don't the people who cobble this sort of thing together realise that the provision of Epistles and Gospels in the 1662 Prayer Book (and followed more or less in the CinW blue book) goes back via the Sarum missal to what was current in the undivided Church as early as the 5th century? See http://www.lectionarycentral.com/trinity/Phillips.html.
ReplyDeleteIt's getting to be a long time since I studied the matters on which you touch in your final sentence, Matthew, but to the best of my recollection you're quite right. There were, if I remember rightly, some few variations from the general 'Latin west' norm with their roots in early mediaeval Gallican, and even more local, uses - like numbering 'green' Sundays after Trinity rather than after Pentecost, which was a Sarum rite eccentricity - but they were exceptions rather than the rule.
DeleteAnd PLEASE, tell me, what on earth are The Sundays of The Kingdom all about 🤔
ReplyDelete@ Merthyr Organist: Don't go there. The estimable Fr Hunwicke referred to them and other strange innovations in a recent post: https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2020/02/what-is-christmastide-and-when-does-it.html.
DeleteI am reminded of an utterance of a priest friend of mine as we crossed the Severn Bridge from Wales into England. ' Ah! I can feel the weight of The Green Book lifting from my shoulders.' Another quote from him on the'ordination'of women. Highly sexist but hugely laughable. 'Ordain em? They should not be allowed to drive'. I hope this lightens up this conversation.
ReplyDeleteYou refer to The Reverend Chancellor William Daniel Parry MA John. A man of unsurpassed intellect and spirituality in stark contrast to the pond life who destroy his legacy in the present day.
ReplyDelete@ The Watchman:
DeleteThat's the man, I think, though I never encountered him personally! I endorse your estimation entirely,
Come to think of it, I think Chancellor Parry was the chairman of the liturgical commission, and that the secretary in the late 1960s was the then vicar of Ruabon.
DeletePP. I am reminded of the words of Bishop Childs "The Church is its people and, the people are the Church - Salt shakers in a busy world".
ReplyDeleteAs we have debates often, until the GB gets some 'balls' nothing will effect change. Perhaps Diocesan Conferences should be more candid, Catholic and Conservative in their election of both laity and clergy as their representatives on the GB. Then we might see changes.
The Revd. Chancellor William Daniel Parry M.A. (1909-2007) of whom you speak, was my Father Confessor for a number of years. I spent many an interesting hour in his company on several occasions. I have nothing but great admiration and respect for this very devout priest. He was Chairman of the Liturgical commission in the 1960s and was instrumental in the formation of the 1966 Eucharist for the Church in Wales (Red: Welsh; Blue: English and Green: Bilingual). A humble and self-effacing man, he wore his scholarship lightly but made an exceedingly rich contribution to the life of the Church in Wales, and to the Diocese of Bangor, where he served his whole ministry. He spent thirty years as Vicar of Llandinam, Arwystli. It is very sad that priests of his calibre are in very short supply these days.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you entirely. At the very end of his ministry at Llandinam I was living in the next parish to his - but 'across the border' in Radnorshire, and in the diocese of Swansea & Brecon. The mountainous terrain of that part of mid-Wales was - and still is - such that there was no metalled road linking the Ithon Valley with Llandinam.
DeleteThe consequence was that while I did get to know some of the clergy in the diocese of St Asaph, around Newtown, I never encountered Chancellor Parry from Bangor. I regret that.
Thanks for your comment John Ellis. I'm sorry you didn't get to know him. It would have been an enriching experience for you. He also had charge of a chapelry at Banhadlog, near Tylwch, which was several miles from Llandinam, but nevertheless in his parish. I used to visit him in retirement at Penrhyncoch, near Aberystwyth. He was a lovely man. God rest his soul.
ReplyDeleteAmen. Those were better days.
DeleteI agree with the comments about Chancellor Parry. He was undoubtedly a man of God and a worthy example to his brethren in the Sacred Ministry. He was a very fine embodiment of Anglicanism at its best: devout, disciplined, dedicated and wise. To spend an hour or so in his company was to be encouraged and inspired by a living example of what priesthood in the Church of God should be.
ReplyDeleteAs I have reflected on this situation (Cherry Vann becoming Bishop of Monmouth, I mean), I am left asking this question. It is a question that could also be asked in relation to the Diocese of Llandaff.
ReplyDeleteIs this a case where one person's need to be made a bishop is given a far higher value than the Church's need for a bishop who is better able to serve the particular needs of the Diocese and wider Province?
Not only has the Church in Wales been in a state of withdrawal from it cultural, linguistic and historic setting for the last couple of decades (with large numbers of gifted Welsh-speaking clergy, several of whom who were clearly and undoubtedly episcopal material, choosing to leave the CinW); but we are now in a situation where we have bishops serving the most populated sees (including the capital city) with only a partial grasp on the cultural, linguistic, political and ecclesial terrain they have been parachuted into.
While it could be argued - just about - that Andy John's clear ineptitude, and Joanna Penberthy's agenda of domestication, can only incur limited damage because of the sparsity of the population of their respective dioceses; it does nonetheless continue to fuel the widespread malaise. Key to that malaise is an all-pervasive discontent and lack of confidence in the senior leadership. The fact that people feel they no longer have any stake in the Church means they are no longer prepared to invest the energy into holding the leadership to account. Rats and sinking ships come to mind.
So while Lister Tonge wanted to do his old friend Cherry from Manchester a favour, put right a perceived injustice because she was obviously not making it on to the Church of England's preferment list, by engineering the Electoral College; he was treating the rest of the Church with absolute contempt. There are probably good reasons why Cherry Vann was not considered suitable for episcopal office in the C of E (just like June Osborne); but instead of attending to the wisdom of the body catholic, certain individuals believed they knew better.
My guess is we are bout to see that they did not - and do not - know better, as we continue to reap the harvest of their self-serving folly.
Thank you so much, Athelstan. This succinctly sums it up.
ReplyDelete