Going back to the OP, I discovered today that there are apparently two separate 10,000s, i.e. 20,000.
One is the aspiration for 10,000 lay led congregations envisaged by Myriad. The other is an aspiration for 10,000 envisaged by the Archbishop of York but not, I think, limited to his province, under the name Vision and Strategy with more conventional ordained leadership and for which he's looking for lots of priestly vocations.
Going back to the OP, I discovered today that there are apparently two separate 10,000s, i.e. 20,000.
One is the aspiration for 10,000 lay led congregations envisaged by Myriad. The other is an aspiration for 10,000 envisaged by the Archbishop of York but not, I think, limited to his province, under the name Vision and Strategy with more conventional ordained leadership and for which he's looking for lots of priestly vocations.
Goodness me. I hope someone's told the Holy Spirit about these two aspirations, as She's going to be extremely busy.
Going back to the OP, I discovered today that there are apparently two separate 10,000s, i.e. 20,000.
One is the aspiration for 10,000 lay led congregations envisaged by Myriad. The other is an aspiration for 10,000 envisaged by the Archbishop of York but not, I think, limited to his province, under the name Vision and Strategy with more conventional ordained leadership and for which he's looking for lots of priestly vocations.
But not lots of non-priestly vocations? I do not understand this unbalanced approach to vocations from TPTB when the C of E explicitly has vocations that are not being a priest. It breeds a form of clericalism that is going to make things worse imo.
This UK Methodist suspects that we (in this little corner) are doing quite nicely in eliminating ourselves. I was going to make a 'joke' about the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion, but I see they still exist and employ seven ministers in the UK - so maybe we'll persist for a little while longer. In these parts a CoE with a humanist vicar (I think he'd be OK with that description), who died, has been formed into a team with another local CoE (evangelical). That will be interesting - I think there are those in the congregation who will welcome it, and those who won't, as you might expect.
It would be nice to know where we non Anglicans fit in with all this - unless of course the real aim is either takeover or elimination.
I sometimes wonder if the C of E hierarchy actually realises that there are, in fact, lots of non-Anglican churches about, and that many of them are flourishing, and doing a good job in proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
Down at grass-level in our neck of the woods, the C of E places work happily with the local TSA, Baptist, URC, and Methodist churches (plus several smaller independent evangelical churches).
This initiative is intended to eliminate the Church of England in its current form. It is alien to most English Anglicans. We understand that it is a bulldozer. We are first in line for destruction
It would be nice to know where we non Anglicans fit in with all this - unless of course the real aim is either takeover or elimination.
I sometimes wonder if the C of E hierarchy actually realises that there are, in fact, lots of non-Anglican churches about, and that many of them are flourishing, and doing a good job in proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
Down at grass-level in our neck of the woods, the C of E places work happily with the local TSA, Baptist, URC, and Methodist churches (plus several smaller independent evangelical churches).
Given that they apparently didn't even realise that there were Episcopalians in Scotland...
Might I ask, how many parish churches are there in the CofE at present? What I’m wondering is how the 10,000 (or 20,000) new communities compare to the existing number of churches.
Might I ask, how many parish churches are there in the CofE at present? What I’m wondering is how the 10,000 (or 20,000) new communities compare to the existing number of churches.
Might I ask, how many parish churches are there in the CofE at present? What I’m wondering is how the 10,000 (or 20,000) new communities compare to the existing number of churches.
12,500 according to the Church's own website. As I say, this is nothing less than a total swamping of the existing structure with something which can be manipulated by factional considerations, i.e. HTB and its cronies. It's totally excessive.
Wowwwww! What name should we give this vast revival? The greatest for centuries surely? The Myriad Church Miracle! It needs a place tho' doesn't it?
The dustbin of history would be the most appropriate place. Whether it drags the church with it seems to me to be the only live question. Or do I mean the other way around?
Given that a quarter of the churches above have fewer than 20 people in attendance, I suppose there's a fair amount of wiggle room in exactly how a 'lay led congregation' ends up being defined (though even spawning 10,000 'small' or 'home' groups would be a challenge).
The thing that bothers me is that a) this is all the kind of stuff that made Winchester diocese get pissed off with +Winchester, so why are they positing it as some great new idea? It's not even as if this was simply an issue of poor rural traditional parishes vs rich HTB plants (although that is ofc an issue), it's the paternalistic attitude behind it that really gets existing clergy hacked off. And that leads me onto b) ie the fact that so many clergy in rural or deprived posts have come up with countless creative ways of supporting their churches and communities, without financial or material support from TPTB but simply existing pastoral relationships that have often been incredibly hard work to achieve. It really is a slap in the face to clergy that are burned out enough from the pandemic as it is. I'm wondering if this will drive more clergy to unionise.
I know Rev was great (although vehemently hated by my conservative evangelical church at the time because of all the swearing - yes really) but sometimes I think we need something like The Thick Of It but based at Lambeth Palace. The Thurible Of It or something actually good. Speaking of the Palace, what's happened to their fake monastic community*?
*I know, I'm being harsh because I'm grumpy about the heat but interning as religious without any kind of vows isn't the same as actually forming a religious community - the vows are actually important!
I know Rev was great (although vehemently hated by my conservative evangelical church at the time because of all the swearing - yes really)
Tangent - but some of us didn't like Rev because it's not what church is like for us. We're not all in trendy cities with coffee shops at every corner.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together? As for swearing, well you don't have to do it and perhaps there's an argument around difference that says you avoid it.
I know Rev was great (although vehemently hated by my conservative evangelical church at the time because of all the swearing - yes really)
Tangent - but some of us didn't like Rev because it's not what church is like for us. We're not all in trendy cities with coffee shops at every corner.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together? As for swearing, well you don't have to do it and perhaps there's an argument around difference that says you avoid it.
*Rev* wasn't particularly true to (C of E) life in many ways, but there were some realistic bits...particularly in respect of the procedures for closing churches.
Which makes me wonder, if the C of E is determined to replace existing (if feeble) parish churches with vibrant, dynamic, relevant, exciting (have I forgotten anything?) new *communities*, whether lay-led or otherwise, how are TPTB going to get around (let alone afford) the legal complexities involved?
Far better to concentrate limited resources on existing *communities*, with the caveat that there may indeed be a case for new church plants in some areas.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
I don't disagree but if you believe in ontological change at the moment of ordination - as the CofE does - then change is surely innate at that point
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
I don't disagree but if you believe in ontological change at the moment of ordination - as the CofE does - then change is surely innate at that point
Does the CofE as a whole believe that, or just Anglo-Catholics?
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
I don't disagree but if you believe in ontological change at the moment of ordination - as the CofE does - then change is surely innate at that point
Does the CofE as a whole believe that, or just Anglo-Catholics?
And even among those Anglicans who believe in that ontological change, do they understand it as a change that might be apparent in all aspects of everyday life, or do they understand it as only relating to celebration of the Eucharist and perhaps the ability to pronounce absolution or bless?
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
I don't disagree but if you believe in ontological change at the moment of ordination - as the CofE does - then change is surely innate at that point
I don't think this is uniformly true of even the sacramental traditions -- most of which would distinguish between the office and the man (it's usually a man in this case).
In any case, my impression was that you weren't from a sacramental background yourself, so not sure why it would therefore be a 'real issue' ?
I know Rev was great (although vehemently hated by my conservative evangelical church at the time because of all the swearing - yes really)
Tangent - but some of us didn't like Rev because it's not what church is like for us. We're not all in trendy cities with coffee shops at every corner.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together? As for swearing, well you don't have to do it and perhaps there's an argument around difference that says you avoid it.
What's a trendy city? Regardless of whether you live in a fashionable area or not, you pretty much have to live in a hamlet these days to not have a coffee shop nearby - I have lived in distinctly unfashionable small towns and there were still multiple coffee shops. Framing coffee shops as some kind of ~metropolitan elite~ thing is like insinuating that eating hummus is a middle-class thing, when you can buy it in Lidl and Iceland. It's an outdated way of coding class. Rev is set in London which has a range of fashionable or not so fashionable areas therein, and the stuff that happens in Rev happens basically everywhere at least in spirit.
Priests are human beings like everyone else, not another species. That's a big point that Rev makes, that holding priests to an unrealistically superhuman standard is a recipe for disaster. Swearing is just a normal part of language - indeed, historically non-religious swearing was not considered to be a particularly big deal. Vulgar maybe, but not shocking or offensive. I would posit that bigotry should be considered more offensive than swearing, given that 'offensive language' is a very recent societal construct anyway.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
I don't disagree but if you believe in ontological change at the moment of ordination - as the CofE does - then change is surely innate at that point
Does the CofE as a whole believe that, or just Anglo-Catholics?
I'm under the impression that the C of E does *not* officially believe in ontological change happening at ordination. Even amongst those who believe that it does - even the spikiest A-C - believe that the ontological change relates to the office itself and not to everyday life, except for the minority that believes in a celibate priesthood. Even then that would be the limit. It would definitely not refer to a priest's personal life beyond that.
I know Rev was great (although vehemently hated by my conservative evangelical church at the time because of all the swearing - yes really)
Tangent - but some of us didn't like Rev because it's not what church is like for us. We're not all in trendy cities with coffee shops at every corner.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together? As for swearing, well you don't have to do it and perhaps there's an argument around difference that says you avoid it.
*Rev* wasn't particularly true to (C of E) life in many ways, but there were some realistic bits...particularly in respect of the procedures for closing churches.
Which makes me wonder, if the C of E is determined to replace existing (if feeble) parish churches with vibrant, dynamic, relevant, exciting (have I forgotten anything?) new *communities*, whether lay-led or otherwise, how are TPTB going to get around (let alone afford) the legal complexities involved?
Far better to concentrate limited resources on existing *communities*, with the caveat that there may indeed be a case for new church plants in some areas.
The church buildings and parish settings and legal ramifications are embedded in the history of the land. Afaik the buildings belong to the people of the parishes who provided them in the first place. Better and cheaper for the organisation to back off and make them ‘festival’ churches perhaps than to try to close them altogether or to sell them off.
And if they can persuade lay people to start up churches in their own homes, cheaper still eh?
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
I don't disagree but if you believe in ontological change at the moment of ordination - as the CofE does - then change is surely innate at that point
Does the CofE as a whole believe that, or just Anglo-Catholics?
I'm under the impression that the C of E does *not* officially believe in ontological change happening at ordination. Even amongst those who believe that it does - even the spikiest A-C - believe that the ontological change relates to the office itself and not to everyday life, except for the minority that believes in a celibate priesthood. Even then that would be the limit. It would definitely not refer to a priest's personal life beyond that.
If that's the case then there seems to be an inherent fault line .... one thing at the Eucharist, another elsewhere. Isn't all of life - God given existence - a sacrament?
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
I don't disagree but if you believe in ontological change at the moment of ordination - as the CofE does - then change is surely innate at that point
Does the CofE as a whole believe that, or just Anglo-Catholics?
I'm under the impression that the C of E does *not* officially believe in ontological change happening at ordination. Even amongst those who believe that it does - even the spikiest A-C - believe that the ontological change relates to the office itself and not to everyday life, except for the minority that believes in a celibate priesthood. Even then that would be the limit. It would definitely not refer to a priest's personal life beyond that.
If that's the case then there seems to be an inherent fault line .... one thing at the Eucharist, another elsewhere. Isn't all of life - God given existence - a sacrament?
To put it bluntly, no it's not. If you believe in sacraments then you can't somehow claim that everything is one, because then the term is meaningless. If everything is a sacrament there's no point in distinguishing between them. Sacrament has a specific meaning and does not just mean anything that's sacred. But either way, that's irrelevant to the fact that the ontological change at ordination that *some* Anglicans believe in (and ordination itself is not a sacrament to most) does not apply to a priest's private life beyond what would already be unacceptable to them as a Christian. Even if it was somehow inherently bad (which, citation needed) priests are still human and have foibles like everyone else. A tv show showing priests as real human beings to be empathised with is not bad.
Our previous incumbent really disliked Rev because he thought it made it look as though the church was about social work rather than “proclaiming the gospel”. I liked it because it seemed to chime very strongly with my own experiences of church, and church people. And I loved Liam Neeson in a tracksuit being God.
Thanks for the clarification about the existing number of parishes and churches. This makes the additional 10,000, or 20,000 - really, who’s counting by this stage? - seem even more ridiculous.
And meanwhile at our next PCC meeting, we’re discussing merging the children’s work between the churches in the neighbouring parishes as there are so few children attending and the few leaders need a break. We’ve already lost a clergy post. These shiny new lay-led initiatives always make me want to ask “Have you met the laity lately? We’re knackered”. I appreciate not all laity are, and I’m sure many are chomping at the bit to set all sorts of new initiatives into motion, but my friends and I - we’re bushed.
I'm not sure where they expect to find all these lay members with plenty of time on their hands - wives work now, or hadn't they noticed? And the halcyon days of harnessing the hale and hearty recently retired is disappearing over the horizon fast with the increased pension ages, which is limiting that pool. If they want money and support from their lay people, those lay members need to be working, which limits their time available. Or if they're hoping to tap those people who are out of work, the benefits office will start sanctioning anyone who spends too much time volunteering (there are allowed limits) and not enough time job seeking, even if they have the time and energy around the exigences of poverty and the demands of job seeking. So that leaves the independently wealthy, doesn't it?
My experience is that it is the same few laity who "run" everything .... and that would take large quantities of dynamite to dislodge them.
Is the A Desirable Thing? Is this envisaged as the future?
Our previous incumbent really disliked Rev because he thought it made it look as though the church was about social work rather than “proclaiming the gospel”. I liked it because it seemed to chime very strongly with my own experiences of church, and church people. And I loved Liam Neeson in a tracksuit being God.
Thanks for the clarification about the existing number of parishes and churches. This makes the additional 10,000, or 20,000 - really, who’s counting by this stage? - seem even more ridiculous.
And meanwhile at our next PCC meeting, we’re discussing merging the children’s work between the churches in the neighbouring parishes as there are so few children attending and the few leaders need a break. We’ve already lost a clergy post. These shiny new lay-led initiatives always make me want to ask “Have you met the laity lately? We’re knackered”. I appreciate not all laity are, and I’m sure many are chomping at the bit to set all sorts of new initiatives into motion, but my friends and I - we’re bushed.
I sympathise, having felt much the same in the fairly recent past. Health issues forced me to give up most of the many *jobs* I was doing, but there are still The Faithful Few at Our Place doing most of the work - not because others don't want to help, but because (as @Curiosity killed says) they have other things to do...
Our previous incumbent really disliked Rev because he thought it made it look as though the church was about social work rather than “proclaiming the gospel”.
My observation, from being in a family which planted a church, was a lot of the 'proclaiming the gospel' looked more like the kinds of 'social work' that @Lamb Chopped has described many times. That was just the parishioners. There was a entirely different set of calls stemming from social services being run down, the social fabric being broken and the doctor or vicar being the ones to call in an emergency.
Even the character of Mick was a recognisable type.
And even among those Anglicans who believe in that ontological change, do they understand it as a change that might be apparent in all aspects of everyday life, or do they understand it as only relating to celebration of the Eucharist and perhaps the ability to pronounce absolution or bless?
I would assume that the point of calling it an ontological change is to state that it is the latter and isn't supposed to be a moral or psychological change.
But either way, that's irrelevant to the fact that the ontological change at ordination that *some* Anglicans believe in (and ordination itself is not a sacrament to most) does not apply to a priest's private life beyond what would already be unacceptable to them as a Christian.
I think I'd phrase it a bit differently, but I think we're meaning the same thing. On ordination, a priest acquires the ability and authority to do "priestly things" - as @Nick Tamen says, to celebrate the Eucharist, to bless, to absolve. That's an ontological change in the person: they're no longer a layperson and are now a priest - and that change doesn't only apply when they're in a church building, or wearing a dog collar.
But there's nothing about this change which renders a priest more immune to sin, or magically a better person. And whilst a priest certainly should be a good Christian, they are as you say still human, and just as vulnerable to the array of human weakness.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together?
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
I don't disagree but if you believe in ontological change at the moment of ordination - as the CofE does - then change is surely innate at that point
Does the CofE as a whole believe that, or just Anglo-Catholics?
I'm under the impression that the C of E does *not* officially believe in ontological change happening at ordination. Even amongst those who believe that it does - even the spikiest A-C - believe that the ontological change relates to the office itself and not to everyday life, except for the minority that believes in a celibate priesthood. Even then that would be the limit. It would definitely not refer to a priest's personal life beyond that.
If that's the case then there seems to be an inherent fault line .... one thing at the Eucharist, another elsewhere. Isn't all of life - God given existence - a sacrament?
If a sacrament bestows inner grace by way of an outward sign, ie through the Eucharist or baptism, it is God’s grace which is being received and not from the human being who is in the position to perform the rite. If there is a change in the person who is priested, other than that they are allowed to perform the sacrament by others in the organisation, that too is given by grace from God.
It seems to be human nature to try to manipulate God to our purpose, rather than to humbly accept God’s will and grace - whether or not we have been ‘priested’ by other people.
Our previous incumbent really disliked Rev because he thought it made it look as though the church was about social work rather than “proclaiming the gospel”.
My observation, from being in a family which planted a church, was a lot of the 'proclaiming the gospel' looked more like the kinds of 'social work' that @Lamb Chopped has described many times. That was just the parishioners.
Dunno about that; a lot easier to hound a layperson out of the parish and I’ve seen more than a few paid lay staff dumped unceremoniously with no recourse against the cleric(s) in question
Comments
One is the aspiration for 10,000 lay led congregations envisaged by Myriad. The other is an aspiration for 10,000 envisaged by the Archbishop of York but not, I think, limited to his province, under the name Vision and Strategy with more conventional ordained leadership and for which he's looking for lots of priestly vocations.
Goodness me. I hope someone's told the Holy Spirit about these two aspirations, as She's going to be extremely busy.
But not lots of non-priestly vocations? I do not understand this unbalanced approach to vocations from TPTB when the C of E explicitly has vocations that are not being a priest. It breeds a form of clericalism that is going to make things worse imo.
I sometimes wonder if the C of E hierarchy actually realises that there are, in fact, lots of non-Anglican churches about, and that many of them are flourishing, and doing a good job in proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
Down at grass-level in our neck of the woods, the C of E places work happily with the local TSA, Baptist, URC, and Methodist churches (plus several smaller independent evangelical churches).
Given that they apparently didn't even realise that there were Episcopalians in Scotland...
I can only blame the current heatwave for the fact that they've all apparently gone bonkers...
I think I saw a figure of 12 000.
Around 16,000 spread over about 12500 parishes.
12,500 according to the Church's own website. As I say, this is nothing less than a total swamping of the existing structure with something which can be manipulated by factional considerations, i.e. HTB and its cronies. It's totally excessive.
The dustbin of history would be the most appropriate place. Whether it drags the church with it seems to me to be the only live question. Or do I mean the other way around?
Citations:
Number of churches: Page 2 of https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/2019StatisticsForMission.pdf
Number of parishes: https://www.churchofengland.org/about/research-and-statistics
Given that a quarter of the churches above have fewer than 20 people in attendance, I suppose there's a fair amount of wiggle room in exactly how a 'lay led congregation' ends up being defined (though even spawning 10,000 'small' or 'home' groups would be a challenge).
I know Rev was great (although vehemently hated by my conservative evangelical church at the time because of all the swearing - yes really) but sometimes I think we need something like The Thick Of It but based at Lambeth Palace. The Thurible Of It or something actually good. Speaking of the Palace, what's happened to their fake monastic community*?
*I know, I'm being harsh because I'm grumpy about the heat but interning as religious without any kind of vows isn't the same as actually forming a religious community - the vows are actually important!
Tangent - but some of us didn't like Rev because it's not what church is like for us. We're not all in trendy cities with coffee shops at every corner.
The real issue is that Rev's main character isn't/wasn't drawn differently to everyone else. Surely being a Minister does mean something even if we are all in this together? As for swearing, well you don't have to do it and perhaps there's an argument around difference that says you avoid it.
*Rev* wasn't particularly true to (C of E) life in many ways, but there were some realistic bits...particularly in respect of the procedures for closing churches.
Which makes me wonder, if the C of E is determined to replace existing (if feeble) parish churches with vibrant, dynamic, relevant, exciting (have I forgotten anything?) new *communities*, whether lay-led or otherwise, how are TPTB going to get around (let alone afford) the legal complexities involved?
Far better to concentrate limited resources on existing *communities*, with the caveat that there may indeed be a case for new church plants in some areas.
IME there are plenty of ministers/vicars/pastors who are different and plenty that are much the same, there are also good and bad versions of both.
I don't disagree but if you believe in ontological change at the moment of ordination - as the CofE does - then change is surely innate at that point
Does the CofE as a whole believe that, or just Anglo-Catholics?
No matter the question, the answer is Pensions.
I don't think this is uniformly true of even the sacramental traditions -- most of which would distinguish between the office and the man (it's usually a man in this case).
In any case, my impression was that you weren't from a sacramental background yourself, so not sure why it would therefore be a 'real issue' ?
Hmm. Follow The Money, certainly...
Cynical? Me?
What's a trendy city? Regardless of whether you live in a fashionable area or not, you pretty much have to live in a hamlet these days to not have a coffee shop nearby - I have lived in distinctly unfashionable small towns and there were still multiple coffee shops. Framing coffee shops as some kind of ~metropolitan elite~ thing is like insinuating that eating hummus is a middle-class thing, when you can buy it in Lidl and Iceland. It's an outdated way of coding class. Rev is set in London which has a range of fashionable or not so fashionable areas therein, and the stuff that happens in Rev happens basically everywhere at least in spirit.
Priests are human beings like everyone else, not another species. That's a big point that Rev makes, that holding priests to an unrealistically superhuman standard is a recipe for disaster. Swearing is just a normal part of language - indeed, historically non-religious swearing was not considered to be a particularly big deal. Vulgar maybe, but not shocking or offensive. I would posit that bigotry should be considered more offensive than swearing, given that 'offensive language' is a very recent societal construct anyway.
I'm under the impression that the C of E does *not* officially believe in ontological change happening at ordination. Even amongst those who believe that it does - even the spikiest A-C - believe that the ontological change relates to the office itself and not to everyday life, except for the minority that believes in a celibate priesthood. Even then that would be the limit. It would definitely not refer to a priest's personal life beyond that.
It is surely not surprising since there are similar confusions about what happens at baptism and communion.
The church buildings and parish settings and legal ramifications are embedded in the history of the land. Afaik the buildings belong to the people of the parishes who provided them in the first place. Better and cheaper for the organisation to back off and make them ‘festival’ churches perhaps than to try to close them altogether or to sell them off.
And if they can persuade lay people to start up churches in their own homes, cheaper still eh?
But is it what God wants? Who is the master here?
OTOH good luck with attempting to build/acquire a new set of buildings where people live in any significant number.
If that's the case then there seems to be an inherent fault line .... one thing at the Eucharist, another elsewhere. Isn't all of life - God given existence - a sacrament?
To put it bluntly, no it's not. If you believe in sacraments then you can't somehow claim that everything is one, because then the term is meaningless. If everything is a sacrament there's no point in distinguishing between them. Sacrament has a specific meaning and does not just mean anything that's sacred. But either way, that's irrelevant to the fact that the ontological change at ordination that *some* Anglicans believe in (and ordination itself is not a sacrament to most) does not apply to a priest's private life beyond what would already be unacceptable to them as a Christian. Even if it was somehow inherently bad (which, citation needed) priests are still human and have foibles like everyone else. A tv show showing priests as real human beings to be empathised with is not bad.
Thanks for the clarification about the existing number of parishes and churches. This makes the additional 10,000, or 20,000 - really, who’s counting by this stage? - seem even more ridiculous.
And meanwhile at our next PCC meeting, we’re discussing merging the children’s work between the churches in the neighbouring parishes as there are so few children attending and the few leaders need a break. We’ve already lost a clergy post. These shiny new lay-led initiatives always make me want to ask “Have you met the laity lately? We’re knackered”. I appreciate not all laity are, and I’m sure many are chomping at the bit to set all sorts of new initiatives into motion, but my friends and I - we’re bushed.
Is the A Desirable Thing? Is this envisaged as the future?
I sympathise, having felt much the same in the fairly recent past. Health issues forced me to give up most of the many *jobs* I was doing, but there are still The Faithful Few at Our Place doing most of the work - not because others don't want to help, but because (as @Curiosity killed says) they have other things to do...
My observation, from being in a family which planted a church, was a lot of the 'proclaiming the gospel' looked more like the kinds of 'social work' that @Lamb Chopped has described many times. That was just the parishioners. There was a entirely different set of calls stemming from social services being run down, the social fabric being broken and the doctor or vicar being the ones to call in an emergency.
Even the character of Mick was a recognisable type.
I think I'd phrase it a bit differently, but I think we're meaning the same thing. On ordination, a priest acquires the ability and authority to do "priestly things" - as @Nick Tamen says, to celebrate the Eucharist, to bless, to absolve. That's an ontological change in the person: they're no longer a layperson and are now a priest - and that change doesn't only apply when they're in a church building, or wearing a dog collar.
But there's nothing about this change which renders a priest more immune to sin, or magically a better person. And whilst a priest certainly should be a good Christian, they are as you say still human, and just as vulnerable to the array of human weakness.
If a sacrament bestows inner grace by way of an outward sign, ie through the Eucharist or baptism, it is God’s grace which is being received and not from the human being who is in the position to perform the rite. If there is a change in the person who is priested, other than that they are allowed to perform the sacrament by others in the organisation, that too is given by grace from God.
It seems to be human nature to try to manipulate God to our purpose, rather than to humbly accept God’s will and grace - whether or not we have been ‘priested’ by other people.
I’d agree with you.
Very true, but it's much easier to get rid of clergy than to get rid of lay people.