Epiphanies 2022: Established churches and inclusion
This discussion was created from comments split from: Tutu's daughter not allowed to conduct funeral.
Hello, this thread is for discussing the point that came up on the previous thread about established churches and inclusion.
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hello, this thread is for discussing the point that came up on the previous thread about established churches and inclusion.
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/04/church-of-england-welcome-gay-people-face-parliament-ben-bradshaw
It has done Wales no harm at all.
I find it amusing that he calls for disestablishment on the grounds that the CofE excludes "a significant minority of the population" where the minority is gay people (roughly 3% of the population), when by its very nature the CofE excludes the overwhelming majority of the country.
I guess he doesn't mind Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Jews, Catholics, etc. being excluded...
Except that, in my admittedly limited experience, the CinW still likes to behave as if it is "the" national Church.
At heart, I truly think that the CinW made the correct choice.
Yikes tangent
Apologies
Quite so. I did notice the irony...
Only about 15% of England's population is non-white. Should we ignore that minority as well? (A separate question is whether the CofE/CinW already ignore them)
Whether one believes having an established church is a good thing or a bad thing, a Christian has no option when it comes to believing that sovereigns, presidents, governments etc are accountable to God and not the other way round. God is not accountable to any sovereign, president or government.
It's fundamental to Christian belief that all are encouraged to believe and are welcome if they do. Time was when the contrary view was widespread, but few people these days think that those who don't, or who belong to other Christian households should be obliged to conform to the Church of England despite, and irrespective of, their belief or choice.
It presumably follows that he’s perfectly fine with excluding people in general, just not this one specific group. Which is not exactly the principled stand for inclusion and equality that it’s being presented as.
I’m not sure that’s true. My understanding is that any CofE church is legally obliged to carry out pastoral services (baptism, marriage, funerals) to anyone who lives in the parish who wants it. If it weren’t an established church, that probably wouldn’t necessarily be the case.
Not quite everyone for marriage in the parish since same sex couples cannot marry in the church though they can at the registry office. Opposite sex couples where one person is divorced with a still living former spouse can be refused by particular priests so may have to shop around. There is a right to be buried in the parish churchyard if resident in or die in the parish (assuming an active burial ground exists); I'm not sure there is a right to a funeral service unless baptized.
Note at one time the only legal weddings in England were those that took place in the CoE (unless both partners were either Jews or Quakers). Too bad if you were Roman Catholic or Unitarian or Muslim.
Very convenient for George when he agreed to marry Caroline of Brunswick a few years later ( not for love but so Parliament would vote him
£ 200,000 pounds to pay his debts, providing he married a Protestant princess of his father’s choosing).
Well, yes and no.
Regardless of where it took place, this marriage was null because, under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, all marriages of members of the Royal Family (any descendant of George II) required the consent of the King. The purported marriage of the Prince of Wales and Mrs Fitzherbert happened in 1785.
But you're right - under the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753, all marriages in England and Wales were to be conducted in a church by a Church of England priest. Jews and Quakers were explicitly exempted from this requirement. Catholics were allowed to marry in their own churches again by the Marriage Act 1836.
George married her because she refused to be his mistress; he would have been well aware that he could get out of it at his convenience.
Why is the question of whether it considered a valid marriage by the Roman Catholic church of even the slightest relevance?
Yes, all of that is true and it occurred to me after I’d submitted my post. However, my point still stands as I was replying to the assertion that an established church excludes the majority of the population.
FWIW
I think that the 'marriage' between the Prince Regent and Mrs Fitzherbert was conducted by an Anglican priest as at that time these were the only people in England who could conduct marriages (unless one were a Quaker or a Jew)
Even Catholics were married and often buried by Anglican clergy at that time.
was most definitely of relevance. A marriage with a Roman Catholic would have barred the Prince Regent from the throne,irrespective of whether it went against the royal Marriages Act or not. And it would not have mattered whether the ceremony was in a Catholic church or if the ceremony was conducted by an Anglican priest. It would have been sufficient for the bride to say,as undoubtedly Mrs Fitzherbert did, that she professed the Catholic religionIt would also have meant that the daughter of the Prince Regent from his 'marriage' with Caroline of Brunswick would have been an illegitimate daughter who could not have inherited the throne (even if she had lived and even if her child had lived)
Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
It may be legally obliged - technically - but the church can make it (IME) rather hard to access such services. Eg someone I know was refused baptism for their child on the basis that he didn't do it for kids from the council estate.
As with a lot of stuff with the CofE the walk don't match the talk.
It's not the case that the CofE "invariably" do such services - I've done many. of them and I am not CofE. It depends on the local authority and local churches. In the area I lived the CofE refused to do them as the fee was too low -- yes, there is a fee built into the standard package but as the grant is so low, the undertakers often "overlook" it as they don't get any profit out of it otherwise.
As I've never charged a fee for any service (weddings or funerals) it rather helped things along. The secular people won't touch them with a bargepole as the fee comes well below the £350 plus they want.
What?!!!
(I don't do baptism for any kids, but that's because I'm a Baptist!)
If that’s true, they were in breach of Canon Law and need to be reported
No minister shall refuse or, save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents, delay to baptize any infant within his cure that is brought to the church to be baptized, provided that due notice has been given and the provisions relating to godparents in these Canons are observed.
If the minister shall refuse or unduly delay to baptize any such infant, the parents or guardians may apply to the bishop of the diocese, who shall, after consultation with the minister, give such directions as he thinks fit.
Yes, with parents' consent. The important thing is that the request comes from the young person - clearly not possible with babies.
On the more general point, ISTM that State Churches and the idea of the Monarch as their head stem from three thoughts (among others, I'm sure). One is that society is conherent with everyone basically Christian unless they specifically opt out. Then there is the idea that the monarch even if not directly apppointed by God, is in that position because God so wills. The third is that the monarch decrees the religion for their subjects: it's not a freewill choice.
! I hope the bishop had not just something but quite a few things to say about that.
I guess it depends what you mean by "exclude". Are Muslims excluded on the grounds that the CofE won't conduct an Islamic service for them? Are atheists excluded on the grounds that the CofE insists on having religious content in its services?
Surely it is possible that the child in question and the council estate in question was not in that pastor's parish and that they should have been directed to whoever had CofE 'cure of souls' for that particular council estate.
Another possibility is that it was clear to the pastor in question that the parents had little idea of the meaning of baptism nor of the responsibilities which it entails.
If it was indeed simply that the pastor 'did not baptise children from the council estate' this would seem to me a grave dereliction of duty.
Is the incumbent of any CofE parish legally bound to baptise anyone who comes to his or her or their door ?
I'm sure C of E clergy Shipmates will explain further.
Sometimes people will approach the priest of a church with which they have family connections - previous attendance/baptisms/weddings/funerals - even though they themselves don't now live in the parish.
Many clergy see these as pastoral opportunities, but I believe most would also mention it to the priest of the family's own *home* parish as a matter of courtesy - Our Place's FatherInCharge certainly does, although recently most, if not all, baptisms have been of *local* people. One family is mixed Italian/Chinese - Dad is Italian RC, and Mum is Chinese Buddhist, but came to the baptism...she does not, I think, attend regular services (though we have had individual Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs at various odd times - it must be the incense), but the child's nanny (Chinese Christian) does.
I was told this by the Father of the child who then stepped away from any church involvement as a result. (He'd been in the choir but couldn't always go to church as his work on a farm meant caring for animals on the weekend as well as working hard to make ends meet).
They lived in the parish 200 yards from the church. The parents although uneducated in the school sense had both attended church for many years.
It was something he needed to talk about before he died. OK it happened many years ago (1958) - but who knows how unique it was? Can you imagine though, all those years ago a Bishop listening to family from such a background when even today they won't engage with the survivors of Iwerne and Jonathan Fletcher?
The gap between "should" and "does" is still a gulf.
Thankfully all is never lost - the man who unburdened came to accept faith again and attended a church in his 80's, the 3 years before he died. The church was led by the son who couldn't be baptised in his own village.
That son is me.
It seems unbelievable that the incumbent would not baptise the child of church members who lived only 200 yards away from the church. The council estate must then also have been 200 yards away from the church building. I wonder if this happened often as there must surely have been other children born on the council estate.
Down the centre line of the road runs not just the Parish boundary but the Diocesan one! This is currently causing a problem over the funeral service in a family I know.
Er no. The house and church are pretty central to the Parish. What I didn't say before was that my grandparents worshipped at the same church and members of my family in direct line were baptised there from 1650.
Dad wanted me to forgive him for not being able to get me baptised. There was nothing to forgive and so far as anyone can tell he died, totally at peace, quietly and gently in our home, trusting in the love of God. He truly believed that those who had loved him the most (his parents) were as close to him as I his only child and his 3 granddaughters were.
This does NOT excuse the vicar aforementioned from being (it would seem) pastorally insensitive. I would like to think it couldn't happen now, but...
I checked the records a while ago .... there were baptisms but none from the estate. In the 60+ houses there were children of the right age but it all may well be a coincidence ... or not.
I'd love to believe it BT but we non cons are on the receiving end of some patronizing behaviour and the CofE can't sort it's Safeguarding issues out and seems factionalised into public school types and others over Iwerne which looks for all money like an internal cult.
(assuming the incumbent was the vicar) to refuse his own involved parishioners seems at the very least 'unchristian'.
I am so pleased that E.M.s father was able to die in peace with God and with the family whom he felt he had so many years previously let down.
Some incumbents and/or congregations are less inclusive than others, yes, but whoever you are there will be a home church in there somewhere.
In the end, however, it will remain a Christian church - and so there will be religious content of a Christian nature as part of what it offers.
Even so, those who are C of E chaplains will minister sensitively to those of other religions.