I do wish TPTB (who are indeed collectively potty, it seems) would look out for the 10000+ existing communities in the C of E which could do with a helping hand.
You know, the parishes short of cash, clergy, and volunteers, but which are still beavering faithfully away at being Christians in the manner @Lamb Chopped so eloquently described, further up the thread.
I have read Fraser's critique, but I don't entirely understand the CofE's plans? Is it, the creation of 10,000 churches that are lay led? Meaning the Eucharist would not be celebrated on a weekly basis since presumably they would have no regular priest?
Can someone from the CofE shed some light on this brou-ha-ha?
Why would it need a regular priest ?
The subtext of these house churches being lay-led is that there aren't enough priests to go around. It's already a struggle to celebrate the Eucharist for every congregation that wants it. Even to find priests to bob in, say the "magic words" and bob out again for 10 000 house churches would be impossible.
I still don't understand why you need ordained priests.
The Church of England's Canon law requires that the Eucharist be celebrated (presided over/led/conducted) by someone who has been ordained priest, by a bishop.
Other denominations sometimes do things somewhat differently, especially those with a more *memorialist* stance on Holy Communion.
Anything to stop Bishops consecrating baptised and confirmed people priests en masse, or even as a regular part of the confirmation service so whoever attends "church" that day can do the magic bits?
The reference to "magic bits" is such an insult to sacramental theology I would like to know whether it is intended with some kind of affection or the hostility with which it appears to bristle.
I have read Fraser's critique, but I don't entirely understand the CofE's plans? Is it, the creation of 10,000 churches that are lay led? Meaning the Eucharist would not be celebrated on a weekly basis since presumably they would have no regular priest?
Can someone from the CofE shed some light on this brou-ha-ha?
Why would it need a regular priest ?
The subtext of these house churches being lay-led is that there aren't enough priests to go around. It's already a struggle to celebrate the Eucharist for every congregation that wants it. Even to find priests to bob in, say the "magic words" and bob out again for 10 000 house churches would be impossible.
I still don't understand why you need ordained priests.
The Church of England's Canon law requires that the Eucharist be celebrated (presided over/led/conducted) by someone who has been ordained priest, by a bishop.
Other denominations sometimes do things somewhat differently, especially those with a more *memorialist* stance on Holy Communion.
Anything to stop Bishops consecrating baptised and confirmed people priests en masse, or even as a regular part of the confirmation service so whoever attends "church" that day can do the magic bits?
A commitment to the Biblical principle of ensuring that things are done "decently and in order".
Assuming that these 10,000 new congregations materialise (a big if) and that the CoE does not authorise lay presidency (which it almost certainly won't) one way to enable Holy Communion would be for each house church to be associated with an existing congregation (with an ordained priest) which they would attend once a month or so.
Oooo apparently (so says the Church Times) the "10,000 lay-led churches" is different from the "10,000 new communities" thing.
The first is from an evangelical-looking group called Myriad. The second is from the CoE "Vision and Strategy" group and envisages existing parishes developing new initatives. But they're not sure what exactly.
Honestly the official CoE idea seems even more tenuous than the Myriad thing. At least Myriad have some sort of strategy, even if you deeply disagree with it. The "Vision and Strategy" statement seems more like a hopeless wish. Oh and they want to double the number of children attending. Again not sure how that might happen.
"I will do such things - what they are, yet I know not..."
Holy Communion by Extension, as a *main* service, rather than as a home Communion (for example) was officially frowned upon in this Diocese by our recently-retired Bishop. (His successor may have different ideas, of course...).
If you're talking about Extension as a main service, then what you're talking about is almost certainly reservation ('cause the logistics of doing "genuine" extension - have an early morning Mass at a central church, then have the elements distributed to the main services at satellite churches) are a bit challenging. And there are a number of people who can tolerate extension, but tend to get a bit flustered by reservation
Any training worth its salt challenges the right of leaders to do this, rather than reinforcing it, though of course that puts theological formation under a lot of scruitiny - all too often, narrowness seems to be a virtue.
Quite so. Narrowness is what has got us into such a fragmented state now. Clearly, however, the new leaders would need training but hopefully not in the silos which have produced our clergy, rather something more like the pretty neutral training given to Readers.
Holy Communion by Extension, as a *main* service, rather than as a home Communion (for example) was officially frowned upon in this Diocese by our recently-retired Bishop. (His successor may have different ideas, of course...).
If you're talking about Extension as a main service, then what you're talking about is almost certainly reservation ('cause the logistics of doing "genuine" extension - have an early morning Mass at a central church, then have the elements distributed to the main services at satellite churches) are a bit challenging. And there are a number of people who can tolerate extension, but tend to get a bit flustered by reservation
Yes, but it would be interesting to know just how many churches actually do already reserve the Sacrament, purely for taking Communion to the sick or housebound.
Am I right in assuming that these many churchlets are going to be held in private people's houses?
In which case, how are they going to be open to persons in the public who might feel drawn to church? I have had enough trouble going into a church I don't know, but if it came to a house, I wouldn't even try.
Presumably it's by invitation? And then the sneaking away because the welcome is too much not a welcome, or too gushing, becomes a problem.
I had problems with the prayer group at the Science 101 Summer School, and that was in a public space.
I think they're going to be far too big to be held in private houses. No, warehouses and factories, deserted post-Brexit, will find New Life, as Temples of the Shiny New Age of Anglicanism!
I think they're going to be far too big to be held in private houses. No, warehouses and factories, deserted post-Brexit, will find New Life, as Temples of the Shiny New Age of Anglicanism!
And we'll be able to add one more item to the list of things the insane UK housing market has destroyed.
"We're not making money on our restaurants because we've hardly any customers."
"OK. Open another 10,000 branches and get the customers to staff them to save on staff wages."
I was going to type up a long, closely-worded dissertation of why this 10,000 communities is a bad idea, but I think your two sentences pithily sum up everything I was going to say.
Church buildings are under-used as it is. Why does anyone think we need to have extra congregations outside of those buildings?
The reference to "magic bits" is such an insult to sacramental theology I would like to know whether it is intended with some kind of affection or the hostility with which it appears to bristle.
Affection.
It also points out that communion is one of the only reasons you actually even need priests in the CofE as laity can do all the rest . Plus that there are different theologies in the CofE of what is happening during the sacrament, but we all tend to agree that it's something special that (possibly spiritually, definitely legally) needs a Priest to make it valid.
Church buildings are under-used as it is. Why does anyone think we need to have extra congregations outside of those buildings?
But clearly what goes on in existing church buildings is boring and irrelevant, whereas what goes on in these 10,000 new communities is relevant and exciting and new.
OK, well that's kind of why I asked. I was about to unleash a diatribe, having had enough of attacks on the sacramental understanding of the life of faith, but then realised that it could come from more than one direction.
It also shows the extent to which the life of the church has been functionalised. Yes, celebration of the eucharist and the sacrament of reconcilliation both require uniquely a priest, but the eucharist as an act gathers a community, and a priest who is already at the centre of the community can do this so much more effectively thaan a flying visitor.
Church buildings are under-used as it is. Why does anyone think we need to have extra congregations outside of those buildings?
But clearly what goes on in existing church buildings is boring and irrelevant, whereas what goes on in these 10,000 new communities is relevant and exciting and new.
VIBRANT! You forgot to mention VIBRANT!! (aka noisy)
You know, the other Sacrament expressly commanded by Our Lord...
Anyone can baptize, although it is in the interests of good order that it happens in church, preferably in a regular service, and with appropriate preparation of the parents beforehand. A lay president couldn't bless the water, but that's not an essential part of a baptism. So I don't see any fundamental problems with a lay-led C of E congregation having lay-led baptisms.
You know, the other Sacrament expressly commanded by Our Lord...
Anyone can baptize, although it is in the interests of good order that it happens in church, preferably in a regular service, and with appropriate preparation of the parents beforehand. A lay president couldn't bless the water, but that's not an essential part of a baptism. So I don't see any fundamental problems with a lay-led C of E congregation having lay-led baptisms.
Well, perhaps not, though I'm not by any means a clericalist, and don't have any deep-rooted objection to lay presidency at the Eucharist (ssh...don't tell my priest-in-charge... ).
However, it's not at all clear to me how these 10000 new congregations will have anything genuinely new, relevant, shiny, vibrant, exciting etc. etc. to offer, that isn't already available in many similar set-ups (sets-up?).
Or is it all a secret plot to re-introduce the cult of Mithras? Or Father Dagon and Mother Hydra?
"We're not making money on our restaurants because we've hardly any customers."
"OK. Open another 10,000 branches and get the customers to staff them to save on staff wages."
I was going to type up a long, closely-worded dissertation of why this 10,000 communities is a bad idea, but I think your two sentences pithily sum up everything I was going to say.
Church buildings are under-used as it is. Why does anyone think we need to have extra congregations outside of those buildings?
I think a lot of those church buildings are no longer in the 'right' place (from the point of view of being used for gathered congregations). One thing the church is going to need to figure out is a way of building multi-purpose churches that are practical but which retain a sense of the numenal/sacramental.
"We're not making money on our restaurants because we've hardly any customers."
"OK. Open another 10,000 branches and get the customers to staff them to save on staff wages."
I was going to type up a long, closely-worded dissertation of why this 10,000 communities is a bad idea, but I think your two sentences pithily sum up everything I was going to say.
Church buildings are under-used as it is. Why does anyone think we need to have extra congregations outside of those buildings?
I think a lot of those church buildings are no longer in the 'right' place (from the point of view of being used for gathered congregations). One thing the church is going to need to figure out is a way of building multi-purpose churches that are practical but which retain a sense of the numenal/sacramental.
I can think of a number of large, underused, urban churches (Our Place is one!) which could in theory offer hospitality to other congregations. The chief drawback is that they are, as you say, in the *wrong* place - we have very few parking spaces of our own (often naughtily occupied at weekends by our wicked neighbours), and are in a very densely-populated built up area.
We were approached some time ago by a Mar Thoma group, which we would have been very pleased to welcome, but the lack of parking for a congregation gathered from a wide area put them off.
I have read Fraser's critique, but I don't entirely understand the CofE's plans? Is it, the creation of 10,000 churches that are lay led? Meaning the Eucharist would not be celebrated on a weekly basis since presumably they would have no regular priest?
Can someone from the CofE shed some light on this brou-ha-ha?
Why would it need a regular priest ?
The subtext of these house churches being lay-led is that there aren't enough priests to go around. It's already a struggle to celebrate the Eucharist for every congregation that wants it. Even to find priests to bob in, say the "magic words" and bob out again for 10 000 house churches would be impossible.
I still don't understand why you need ordained priests.
The Church of England's Canon law requires that the Eucharist be celebrated (presided over/led/conducted) by someone who has been ordained priest, by a bishop.
Other denominations sometimes do things somewhat differently, especially those with a more *memorialist* stance on Holy Communion.
I understand that but I rely on what the Bible says on the subject.
I have read Fraser's critique, but I don't entirely understand the CofE's plans? Is it, the creation of 10,000 churches that are lay led? Meaning the Eucharist would not be celebrated on a weekly basis since presumably they would have no regular priest?
Can someone from the CofE shed some light on this brou-ha-ha?
Why would it need a regular priest ?
The subtext of these house churches being lay-led is that there aren't enough priests to go around. It's already a struggle to celebrate the Eucharist for every congregation that wants it. Even to find priests to bob in, say the "magic words" and bob out again for 10 000 house churches would be impossible.
I still don't understand why you need ordained priests.
The Church of England's Canon law requires that the Eucharist be celebrated (presided over/led/conducted) by someone who has been ordained priest, by a bishop.
Other denominations sometimes do things somewhat differently, especially those with a more *memorialist* stance on Holy Communion.
I understand that but I rely on what the Bible says on the subject.
Telford wondered why ordained priests were necessary, and I tried to explain that C of E law currently requires an episcopally-ordained person to celebrate the Eucharist. Whether this is a Good Thing or not is quite another matter, but that's how it is in the C of E.
Telford says he prefers to rely on what the Bible says on the subject, which IIRC is not very much at all...so yes, an explanation would be helpful.
Telford wondered why ordained priests were necessary, and I tried to explain that C of E law currently requires an episcopally-ordained person to celebrate the Eucharist. Whether this is a Good Thing or not is quite another matter, but that's how it is in the C of E.
Telford says he prefers to rely on what the Bible says on the subject, which IIRC is not very much at all...so yes, an explanation would be helpful.
1. Corintians 11. For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
I guessed you'd come up with that verse. So unoriginal.
There's nothing in it to say that one can't or shouldn't have people specially appointed for that particular ministry, or any other ministry, come to that.
I have read Fraser's critique, but I don't entirely understand the CofE's plans? Is it, the creation of 10,000 churches that are lay led? Meaning the Eucharist would not be celebrated on a weekly basis since presumably they would have no regular priest?
Can someone from the CofE shed some light on this brou-ha-ha?
Why would it need a regular priest ?
The subtext of these house churches being lay-led is that there aren't enough priests to go around. It's already a struggle to celebrate the Eucharist for every congregation that wants it. Even to find priests to bob in, say the "magic words" and bob out again for 10 000 house churches would be impossible.
I still don't understand why you need ordained priests.
The Church of England's Canon law requires that the Eucharist be celebrated (presided over/led/conducted) by someone who has been ordained priest, by a bishop.
Other denominations sometimes do things somewhat differently, especially those with a more *memorialist* stance on Holy Communion.
I understand that but I rely on what the Bible says on the subject.
CofE = Cannon Law> What you think the Bible says
Or am I wrong?
I guess that *what the Bible says* (very little on this subject) can be interpreted in many different ways, and the C of E's Canon law is one way of working it out in practice. Other churches have their own ways.
I guessed you'd come up with that verse. So unoriginal.
Can you think of something more relevant to quote ?
There's nothing in it to say that one can't or shouldn't have people specially appointed for that particular ministry, or any other ministry, come to that.
and nothing to say that you need special people. to do it.
I have read Fraser's critique, but I don't entirely understand the CofE's plans? Is it, the creation of 10,000 churches that are lay led? Meaning the Eucharist would not be celebrated on a weekly basis since presumably they would have no regular priest?
Can someone from the CofE shed some light on this brou-ha-ha?
Why would it need a regular priest ?
The subtext of these house churches being lay-led is that there aren't enough priests to go around. It's already a struggle to celebrate the Eucharist for every congregation that wants it. Even to find priests to bob in, say the "magic words" and bob out again for 10 000 house churches would be impossible.
I still don't understand why you need ordained priests.
The Church of England's Canon law requires that the Eucharist be celebrated (presided over/led/conducted) by someone who has been ordained priest, by a bishop.
Other denominations sometimes do things somewhat differently, especially those with a more *memorialist* stance on Holy Communion.
I understand that but I rely on what the Bible says on the subject.
CofE = Cannon Law> What you think the Bible says
Or am I wrong?
I guess that *what the Bible says* (very little on this subject) can be interpreted in many different ways, and the C of E's Canon law is one way of working it out in practice. Other churches have their own ways.
"We're not making money on our restaurants because we've hardly any customers."
"OK. Open another 10,000 branches and get the customers to staff them to save on staff wages."
I was going to type up a long, closely-worded dissertation of why this 10,000 communities is a bad idea, but I think your two sentences pithily sum up everything I was going to say.
Church buildings are under-used as it is. Why does anyone think we need to have extra congregations outside of those buildings?
I think a lot of those church buildings are no longer in the 'right' place (from the point of view of being used for gathered congregations). One thing the church is going to need to figure out is a way of building multi-purpose churches that are practical but which retain a sense of the numenal/sacramental.
What do you mean by the right place? I've come across village churches where the village itself was depopulated a while ago, and conversely new-build estates with no provision for a place of worship of any kind, but I'd have thought both situations would only be a small fraction of the general population.
I take @Bishops Finger's point about parking but that would be more of a problem with private houses surely?
Over the last 60 years, while Christian belief was visibly shrinking, the Church of England has, on the whole, regarded evangelism as unnecessary. In my experience, even Evangelical C of E churches haven't done much evangelism. While some evangelistic efforts that have been mentioned in the discussion appear incredibly crass, insensitive, or even abusive, they need to be seen in the light of the fact that the Church of England as a whole has been quietly against evangelism for a long time. The 'elitism' of some evangelical activity may have been a reaction to the contempt many in the Church of England have shown towards evangelism. It is the price the Church of England has paid for deliberately ignoring the need for evangelism for many years.
The Byzantine Empire (as opposed to the Western Roman Empire) managed to survive another 1000 years by switching from having a comparatively small professional army to a very large peasant army. However, I don't suppose they made the change overnight.
Over the last 60 years, while Christian belief was visibly shrinking, the Church of England has, on the whole, regarded evangelism as unnecessary.
While I think that your comment is rather too broad a generalisation, I take the point. I actually think it's true of several of the "long-established" denominations in which evangelism can be regarded as a Naughty Word. I also think that there is still a particular tendency in the CofE to basically regard everyone as Christian unless they have specifically opted out or belong to another faith community - the idea that we are a "Christian country".
Surely, this is not something worth stressing about. We are Anglicans for heaven's sake, well versed in fudges and compromises these four hundred years odd. If you want someone in priest's orders to preside at the communion, call him/her a local ordained minister - with appropriate training and safeguards naturally, but not the whole ordination course and a curacy.
Then you have someone whom we would today call 'lay' but tomorrow will be in orders. Problem solved. It's what works that matters and it can always be fitted into the system.
"We're not making money on our restaurants because we've hardly any customers."
"OK. Open another 10,000 branches and get the customers to staff them to save on staff wages."
I was going to type up a long, closely-worded dissertation of why this 10,000 communities is a bad idea, but I think your two sentences pithily sum up everything I was going to say.
Church buildings are under-used as it is. Why does anyone think we need to have extra congregations outside of those buildings?
I think a lot of those church buildings are no longer in the 'right' place (from the point of view of being used for gathered congregations). One thing the church is going to need to figure out is a way of building multi-purpose churches that are practical but which retain a sense of the numenal/sacramental.
What do you mean by the right place? I've come across village churches where the village itself was depopulated a while ago, and conversely new-build estates with no provision for a place of worship of any kind, but I'd have thought both situations would only be a small fraction of the general population.
My impression is that this is a more common issue than is sometimes thought, the first type of area you mention is more sparsely populated, and the need is in the housing estates that came later (not all of which are very new at this point). Not owning a building is only half of the reason why some churches are in schools/converted cinemas etc.
I take @Bishops Finger's point about parking but that would be more of a problem with private houses surely?
There are quite a few churches in urban areas surrounded by residential streets with parking control.
You are right, but I think he meant that parking in controlled or congested residential streets would be problematic for "communities" of 20/30 people meeting in private houses.
You are right, but I think he meant that parking in controlled or congested residential streets would be problematic for "communities" of 20/30 people meeting in private houses.
Sure. I was specifically addressing the issue of existing buildings being in the 'wrong' place.
Ah. My last church was in the town centre: very little on-street free parking but several expensive multistorey ones close at hand. We were able to negotiate a special rate for regular church-goers otherwise they would have had to pay £4 just to come to a service. A few less able people were able to book parking in our own forecourt.
One church member actually got ticketed on Christmas Day as she'd assumed charges would not apply!
Comments
Me too, @Bishops Finger
<Sigh>
Anything to stop Bishops consecrating baptised and confirmed people priests en masse, or even as a regular part of the confirmation service so whoever attends "church" that day can do the magic bits?
A commitment to the Biblical principle of ensuring that things are done "decently and in order".
The first is from an evangelical-looking group called Myriad. The second is from the CoE "Vision and Strategy" group and envisages existing parishes developing new initatives. But they're not sure what exactly.
Honestly the official CoE idea seems even more tenuous than the Myriad thing. At least Myriad have some sort of strategy, even if you deeply disagree with it. The "Vision and Strategy" statement seems more like a hopeless wish. Oh and they want to double the number of children attending. Again not sure how that might happen.
"I will do such things - what they are, yet I know not..."
If you're talking about Extension as a main service, then what you're talking about is almost certainly reservation ('cause the logistics of doing "genuine" extension - have an early morning Mass at a central church, then have the elements distributed to the main services at satellite churches) are a bit challenging. And there are a number of people who can tolerate extension, but tend to get a bit flustered by reservation
Quite so. Narrowness is what has got us into such a fragmented state now. Clearly, however, the new leaders would need training but hopefully not in the silos which have produced our clergy, rather something more like the pretty neutral training given to Readers.
Yes, but it would be interesting to know just how many churches actually do already reserve the Sacrament, purely for taking Communion to the sick or housebound.
In which case, how are they going to be open to persons in the public who might feel drawn to church? I have had enough trouble going into a church I don't know, but if it came to a house, I wouldn't even try.
Presumably it's by invitation? And then the sneaking away because the welcome is too much not a welcome, or too gushing, becomes a problem.
I had problems with the prayer group at the Science 101 Summer School, and that was in a public space.
And we'll be able to add one more item to the list of things the insane UK housing market has destroyed.
I was going to type up a long, closely-worded dissertation of why this 10,000 communities is a bad idea, but I think your two sentences pithily sum up everything I was going to say.
Church buildings are under-used as it is. Why does anyone think we need to have extra congregations outside of those buildings?
Affection.
It also points out that communion is one of the only reasons you actually even need priests in the CofE as laity can do all the rest . Plus that there are different theologies in the CofE of what is happening during the sacrament, but we all tend to agree that it's something special that (possibly spiritually, definitely legally) needs a Priest to make it valid.
You know, the other Sacrament expressly commanded by Our Lord...
But clearly what goes on in existing church buildings is boring and irrelevant, whereas what goes on in these 10,000 new communities is relevant and exciting and new.
It also shows the extent to which the life of the church has been functionalised. Yes, celebration of the eucharist and the sacrament of reconcilliation both require uniquely a priest, but the eucharist as an act gathers a community, and a priest who is already at the centre of the community can do this so much more effectively thaan a flying visitor.
Lay people can perform a valid baptism.
True it's meant to be an emergency measure but still...
I think I'm right in saying that in the RCC in some instances you need neither a Priest nor water for a valid baptism!
VIBRANT! You forgot to mention VIBRANT!! (aka noisy)
Anyone can baptize, although it is in the interests of good order that it happens in church, preferably in a regular service, and with appropriate preparation of the parents beforehand. A lay president couldn't bless the water, but that's not an essential part of a baptism. So I don't see any fundamental problems with a lay-led C of E congregation having lay-led baptisms.
Well, perhaps not, though I'm not by any means a clericalist, and don't have any deep-rooted objection to lay presidency at the Eucharist (ssh...don't tell my priest-in-charge...
However, it's not at all clear to me how these 10000 new congregations will have anything genuinely new, relevant, shiny, vibrant, exciting etc. etc. to offer, that isn't already available in many similar set-ups (sets-up?).
Or is it all a secret plot to re-introduce the cult of Mithras? Or Father Dagon and Mother Hydra?
I think a lot of those church buildings are no longer in the 'right' place (from the point of view of being used for gathered congregations). One thing the church is going to need to figure out is a way of building multi-purpose churches that are practical but which retain a sense of the numenal/sacramental.
I can think of a number of large, underused, urban churches (Our Place is one!) which could in theory offer hospitality to other congregations. The chief drawback is that they are, as you say, in the *wrong* place - we have very few parking spaces of our own (often naughtily occupied at weekends by our wicked neighbours), and are in a very densely-populated built up area.
We were approached some time ago by a Mar Thoma group, which we would have been very pleased to welcome, but the lack of parking for a congregation gathered from a wide area put them off.
CofE = Cannon Law> What you think the Bible says
Or am I wrong?
Telford says he prefers to rely on what the Bible says on the subject, which IIRC is not very much at all...so yes, an explanation would be helpful.
1. Corintians 11. For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
No mention of any priests
I guessed you'd come up with that verse. So unoriginal.
There's nothing in it to say that one can't or shouldn't have people specially appointed for that particular ministry, or any other ministry, come to that.
I guess that *what the Bible says* (very little on this subject) can be interpreted in many different ways, and the C of E's Canon law is one way of working it out in practice. Other churches have their own ways.
Exactly.
Just not in a Church of England building, as part of an act of public worship.
Well, yes, exactly - though I'm sure most (if not all) other churches have some sort of calling, training, and appointing procedures.
Surely they can't all be wrong, and going against What The Bible Says™?
But
Cannon law!
And of course All Those Other Churches do indeed do all manner of things
But
Cannon Law doesn’t cover All Those etc etc
I have some sympathy with @Telford . But I don’t think the General Synod of the Church England will share those views…
No, indeed not - but this thread is about the Church of England, so perhaps we'd best avoid too much of a tangent!
What do you mean by the right place? I've come across village churches where the village itself was depopulated a while ago, and conversely new-build estates with no provision for a place of worship of any kind, but I'd have thought both situations would only be a small fraction of the general population.
I take @Bishops Finger's point about parking but that would be more of a problem with private houses surely?
The Byzantine Empire (as opposed to the Western Roman Empire) managed to survive another 1000 years by switching from having a comparatively small professional army to a very large peasant army. However, I don't suppose they made the change overnight.
As if.
Would they be Surveying the Wondrous Cross? (Probably not: Isaac Watts was a Dissenter).
Then you have someone whom we would today call 'lay' but tomorrow will be in orders. Problem solved. It's what works that matters and it can always be fitted into the system.
My impression is that this is a more common issue than is sometimes thought, the first type of area you mention is more sparsely populated, and the need is in the housing estates that came later (not all of which are very new at this point). Not owning a building is only half of the reason why some churches are in schools/converted cinemas etc.
There are quite a few churches in urban areas surrounded by residential streets with parking control.
Sure. I was specifically addressing the issue of existing buildings being in the 'wrong' place.
One church member actually got ticketed on Christmas Day as she'd assumed charges would not apply!