What do they teach them in these theology colleges?
I have often wondered. With some of them you wonder whether they've either ignored what they were taught at vicar-school or whether the seminary itself had decided to ignore anything recognisably Anglican.
I've thought that with clergy from both the High and Low ends of the spectrum.
In practice, I suspect they tend to pick up whatever is flavour of the month in whatever 'stream' they swim in. Your New Winers will pick up whatever is de-rigeur at the conferences. The Society types will pick up on whatever they assume is happening across the Tiber but which most probably isn't 😉.
What do they teach them in these theology colleges?
Theological colleges are rather out of favour. But more importantly what do training incumbents teach them?
A friend and I have after much (beer fueled and often football related) discussion come to the conclusion that much of life revolves around the following pair of (very bowlderised) maxims - "don't be rubbish (at what you do)" and "don't be an idiot".
Actually listening and observing what happens in your new church and seeing what really works and matters to folk can't be hard can it?
Treating people (especially those with a track record of consistent service) with respect and playing with a straight bat so that what you say and what you mean line up ought to be factored into the selection process of being a normal decent human being let alone a minister IMHO.
Whatever altitude are at on the proverbial candle surely these are the things that really matter.
I guess you don't find out until feet are firmly under the desk and then you are left with the choice to either grit your teeth or move on...
@Twangist What do they teach them?
In my recent experience bu**er all. Of course, it could be that we had the misfortune to get 3 clerics on the trot who proved resistant to teaching but can one parish be so unfortunate to hit a losing streak like that without it being commonplace?
Many clergy are of the opinion that liturgy/worship is their exclusive domain and prerogative. Not thinking of any here, but this is our experience.
Oh, I've been challenged about not having the Gloria in Advent because "it isn't a penitential season" (a Staggers alumnus). That same cleric moaned about the hymns on Passion Sunday being "gloomy".
Another demanded that we have a new setting of the communion service of their choice, and decreed it wasn't necessary for it to be introduced to the congregation by me, or the choir, because "they'll pick it up quickly enough" - they never did.
And of course I was wrong to think that the paraphrase associated with Crimond didn't really work with Dominus Regit me - I mean, I'd only been "doing" church music for 40 years at that stage. The high-point of that musical genius's time with us was not realising until 20 minutes before a bride was due to arrive that the bagpiper booked for the in and out music couldn't also play the hymns. 😧😱🤣😂
@Arethosemyfeet "Training incumbents"??? More like the blind leading the blind.
Getting back to Justin Welby, the latest Church Times, whilst being sympathetic wrt his treatment over the Makin Report, laments, in an article, regular columns and letters, his 'corporisation' of the COE and laments his 'top down' approach.
One letter makes a plea that his replacement be someone with a pastoral heart.
What do they teach them in these theology colleges?
Theological colleges are rather out of favour. But more importantly what do training incumbents teach them?
Applying the lens I described in an early post, I would suggest that this is a very clear indication that some factions are already failing at institutional reproduction to an extent that will prove fatal over time.
[Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation; it's clear that there's a divergence of views on things held to important]
But I think the thing that marks out successful rural parishes is that they have a mindset of St X has been here far longer than the Revd Y and will continue long after he/she has moved on so we'll grit our teeth and put up with the madness and refuse to be pushed out. Once the irritant has gone elsewhere - and the inevitably long interregnum is a reality - normality resumes.
Instantly recognisable - I'd equate "success" in this case to "continue to exist and serve the community", more or less.
True, but that makes it very difficult for Revd Y to instigate change even when it is sorely needed.
I've been party to detailed accounts of this from both sides, and both sides are often right, in their own way. Common factors include frustration and mutual incomprehension regarding the ability to see the difference between the things that need changing and the things that don't.
I think the church will survive the death of some longstanding institutional expressions of it. Gatherings of Christians will have some hard choices to make.
I think that many of the people identified or mentioned on this thread have a fairly clear idea of the expression of church that they are looking for, and with which they are comfortable.
That includes clergy and those training for ordination - nobody that I've come across starts ordination training wanting to leave behind the expression of church with which they're familiar, and learn a new one. As for training posts: at best, they might expose ordinands to alternate approaches.
I also wonder if anyone goes forward for ordination with the intention of leading a sparsely-populated multi-parish benefice - I don't know if there's yet any aspect of any CofE training process that prepares ordinands or the newly-ordained for this, other than dropping them in such a situation and seeing what happens.
Meanwhile, on the subject of fresh expressions in rural contexts, has anyone come across the Lightwave Community and/or Sally Gaze, the CofE's first Archdeacon for Rural Mission?
Nobody that I've come across starts ordination training wanting to leave behind the expression of church with which they're familiar, and learn a new one. As for training posts: at best, they might expose ordinands to alternate approaches.
Two thoughts.
1. I remember reading an address by George Carey to future ordinands, while he was still a theological college principal, basically saying that most of them came from largish suburban churches but would find themselves in very different situations once they'd been ordained. (I don't think he mentioned churchmanship though).
2. I know a church which last year sent someone for ordination. Fine - but said person was sent for their training placement back to their own parish. This seems bizarre: surely they should have been to somewhere that's very different, to give them the experience?
Yes, they usually go to another parish - we had a chap once, who was from our next-door parish, but That Place is of a very different churchmanship.
The juxtaposition was very convenient, as it meant he didn't have to travel far away from home (he had two little daughters), and he himself said how much his experience at Our Place had broadened his outlook.
Yes, they usually go to another parish - we had a chap once, who was from our next-door parish, but That Place is of a very different churchmanship.
The juxtaposition was very convenient, as it meant he didn't have to travel far away from home (he had two little daughters), and he himself said how much his experience at Our Place had broadened his outlook.
Yes there are powerful arguments for some people to be able to go back to their own doorstep in appropriate circumstances. Their own doormat, on the other hand…
What do they teach them in these theology colleges?
Theological colleges are rather out of favour. But more importantly what do training incumbents teach them?
Applying the lens I described in an early post, I would suggest that this is a very clear indication that some factions are already failing at institutional reproduction to an extent that will prove fatal over time.
[Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation; it's clear that there's a divergence of views on things held to important]
Yes, I think this is probably true.
Add other factors such as inappropriate placements then it's a recipe for disaster.
I know an instance, I won't say where, of a very earnest and capable evangelical vicar who was placed soon after her ordination into a rural parish with a regular congregation of around 8 old ladies who opposed anything and everything she tried to do. She left the ministry.
Yes, they usually go to another parish - we had a chap once, who was from our next-door parish, but That Place is of a very different churchmanship.
The juxtaposition was very convenient, as it meant he didn't have to travel far away from home (he had two little daughters), and he himself said how much his experience at Our Place had broadened his outlook.
Yes there are powerful arguments for some people to be able to go back to their own doorstep in appropriate circumstances. Their own doormat, on the other hand…
Ordinands going back to very close to their old stamping ground for placement is not a good thing, but is bound to happen when you have older, married people, sometimes with children, training for ministry.
In most cases, they don't leave their stamping grounds these days, as I understand it - local training courses being more common than theological college. This may be part of the disease, the cure or, probably, both.
Yes, they usually go to another parish - we had a chap once, who was from our next-door parish, but That Place is of a very different churchmanship.
The juxtaposition was very convenient, as it meant he didn't have to travel far away from home (he had two little daughters), and he himself said how much his experience at Our Place had broadened his outlook.
Yes there are powerful arguments for some people to be able to go back to their own doorstep in appropriate circumstances. Their own doormat, on the other hand…
Ordinands going back to very close to their old stamping ground for placement is not a good thing, but is bound to happen when you have older, married people, sometimes with children, training for ministry.
@Gamma Gamaliel I think that's my point. We've spent a quarter of a century at least - probably longer - charging archbishops with the impossible. As we come to appointing another one, we need to have the courage, collectively, to declare that a failed and in any case foolish mission, and let them do something else. We also need to define that something else, and where they start. I think this is, in logical terms at least, where the collapse starts, because it involves acknowledging the fact that, fatally flawed accommodations which were borne of the impossible mission given to previous archbishops (to keep together and revive a structure that was basically dead) as idle, it already has collapsed. The next archbishop then has the job of sweeping away the dead bits, and seeing what remains, which is another fool's errand, but at least has the merit of having a chance of success in a generation or two.
@ThunderBunk my apologies for coming back on this several days after your post, but I'm not just responding to this post and I have also read those since.
I appreciate from all your posts on this thread that you're pretty fed up with not just with Justin Welby but the Church of England as a whole. I get it that you feel profoundly disengaged and may well have very understandable reasons for doing so. Could I start, though, please, by asking you who is the 'we' that you are invoking in here? 'We' = first person plural, including 'me' - i.e. in this case 'you'. On whose behalf other than yourself here are you speaking. Second, are you, or the others on whose behalf you are speaking, responsible for the choice of the last 25 years worth of archbishops, or for deciding what mission the Church of England should have adopted during that time, or in the future?
There are though, two more questions I would like to ask. The first is, rather than angry chuntering about what is wrong with the church, institutionally, what needs to be put to death, a totally negative vision, what is your positive vision? A negative vision, however strongly you or anyone else might feel about it, is not a vision, and is never a place to start. What would you like to see it be instead? And from that the second is what do you see the church as being for, its primary purpose?
I suppose I had better declare an interest. I would have thought the primary purpose of the church has to be some version of 'the assembly of the faithful', 'the body of Christ on earth'. That means that it is not an institution. The institution can never be anything more than an imperfect means to that end. Everything else, whatever my own, or your, or anyone else's, personal preferences might be, is collateral and probably trivial.
I'm sorry, @Enoch but I don't think it's up to me to come up with a positive vision. I think, at the moment, what we need is honesty that there isn't one immediately available. That's the nub of my frustration. What is needed is an act of faithful honesty, the admission that there is no positive vision at the moment, and we need to wait for one to emerge. Visions, which seem to me to have been nothing but wildly expensive distractions, have abounded. There is a time for borrowing the practice of certain Buddhists and meditating on a blank wall until a pattern comes clear.
The plural was an error, which I didn't catch in time. But it was also an expression of my near-certainty that I am not alone in feeling the way I do - we just don't dare surface for fear of exactly this kind of attack. We are weary of waiting while the church spends huge amounts of time, effort, money and energy being noisily unbearable, for it to calm down and treat being human as being something which God thought was such a good idea he did it himself.
Unless we are talking about Balthazar's feast and writing on the wall, or the Apostle Peter's dream in Acts - 'Arise Peter, kill and eat' - taken at 'face value', I'm not sure that a vision in this sense is something that emerges as if from a blank wall.
I think there is a difference between a vision or 'intention' and the kind of expensive programme or corporate fol-de-rol that @ThunderBunk alludes to and which so many of my Anglican friends find frustrating and debilitating. With good reason.
The tricky bit is how to rally people who are weary, frustrated or have widely different views of how to 'do' church into following a coherent 'vision' or strategy.
It shouldn't be 'top down' either but it does require leadership.
This applies anywhere and not just to the CofE of course.
The late Metropolitan Anthony Bloom once told his congregation that they should put more effort into 'being human' than striving to be Orthodox.
I knew of a Reformed Baptist congregation who set out to be as 'Reformed' capital R as was feasibly possible even if it killed them. It nearly did.
There is a balance of course. The various Orthodox jurisdictions don't have much by way of a strategy for mission or development. It tends to be a case of serving the Liturgy and hoping for the best.
On one level I think it behoves all of us to 'be human', to 'become what we are' and to get on with whatever we happen to do 'you in your small corner and I in mine' 😉 - yet in a 'synergia' kind of way we do need to 'work out our salvation in fear and trembling' - and that is not simply an individual thing. We are none of us saved alone.
I need you in order to be me.
How that 'works' in practice, I don't know. But a counsel of despair isn't a good place to start.
That need not deter you at parish level, unless the nefarious effects extend there. If all of us in the historic churches were to leave because of some scandal or systemic failing somewhere then none of us would be left.
We'd all hive off into independent groups of some kind or other and sooner or later fall out among ourselves.
But an interesting development and one not entirely unexpected.
That need not deter you at parish level, unless the nefarious effects extend there. If all of us in the historic churches were to leave because of some scandal or systemic failing somewhere then none of us would be left.
We'd all hive off into independent groups of some kind or other and sooner or later fall out among ourselves.
But an interesting development and one not entirely unexpected.
Local level around here is all See of Oswestry types. I would be betraying the people who fought so hard against religious sexism to throw my lot in here.
Even in a city with as many churches as mine, I feel like I'm pretty much down to my last choice - at least the last choice I can walk to. See of Richborough around here, but the same problem.
Even in a city with as many churches as mine, I feel like I'm pretty much down to my last choice - at least the last choice I can walk to. See of Richborough around here, but the same problem.
That need not deter you at parish level, unless the nefarious effects extend there. If all of us in the historic churches were to leave because of some scandal or systemic failing somewhere then none of us would be left.
We'd all hive off into independent groups of some kind or other and sooner or later fall out among ourselves.
But an interesting development and one not entirely unexpected.
Local level around here is all See of Oswestry types. I would be betraying the people who fought so hard against religious sexism to throw my lot in here.
Pervs or chauvinists. What a choice.
As I've said, other brands are available.
Clearly the RCs or Orthodox wouldn't be an option for you as they don't have women priests.
How many parishes does Oswestry have around you? I always thought they were thin on the ground.
I'm sure there are plenty of struggling Methodist churches that need a helping hand where you are. I have in-laws who have settled into one very happily not a million miles from you. They have women ministers and are pretty liberal on most issues.
The demographic may be older than you might wish though.
[HTB] has a budget of around £10m a year and a staff of 118, making it larger than several Church of England dioceses. Most parishes in the Church of England struggle to afford a curate. HTB has 28. In addition, there are no fewer than 14 ordinands—people in training to be priests or ministers. Together with four ministers, that totals 46 in leadership or training roles for one parish.
“A CHURCH where mixed ecology is the norm.” This is the latest catchphrase, coined by the Archbishop of York, the Most Revd Stephen Cottrell, last year, to describe the emerging Church of England, where traditional parish structures co-exist side by side with fresh expressions, church-plants, and pioneer ministries.
The mixed ecology is real in ordination training, where mixed-mode and part-time ordinands rub shoulders with (and probably now outnumber) traditional residential students. Dioceses are now expected to launch hundreds of new worshipping communities.
...
THE most significant innovation is the church-planting curacy. This model sees a curate arrive in a well-established church charged with learning the ropes, building a team of volunteers, and then, at some point (either during the curacy or on its completion), moving on to lead a church-plant elsewhere.
In many ways, this model is not new, especially within the Holy Trinity, Brompton (HTB), church-planting network, says the Bishop of Islington, Dr Ric Thorpe, who leads the diocese of London’s work on church-planting. When leading a large HTB-affiliated church in east London, Dr Thorpe recruited new deacons with the express intention of preparing them, over three years, to take members of his congregation as church-planting teams into moribund parishes near by
...
In many places, the timeline is being accelerated even further: curates are being placed in a brand new church-plant from day one rather than first training for a year or two at the sending parish.
...
This model is not unique to the HTB network, and is growing fast across the Church. As well as in London and Bristol, similar curacies have been formed in Lincoln, Oxford, Southwell & Nottingham, Coventry, and elsewhere. Experimentation is rife: some dioceses have also tried placing planting curates back at the church where they worshipped before ordination. These “stay-in-place” curacies contradict the long-established practice of giving new clergy wider experience.
And the Church Times more recently, on how things are going with resource churches (2024):
To explore the experiences of clergy in churches near by, the Church Times surveyed the incumbents of three deaneries in which resource churches had been established.
Last month, the anonymous online survey was sent to directly to 49 clergy in total, which included six leaders of church-plants. In total, 25 responses were received, including from the six plant leaders. Many respondents chose to make additional comments.
...
A sizeable minority — seven — reported concerns with the way in which the resource-church launch had been communicated. “It was not at all clear how the resource church would be a resource for other churches,” one wrote. “The title seems misleading. Who is it a resource for?”
One incumbent observed that, while the resource church was clearly defined as a church-planting resource, “the expectation is that a resource means it will provide support with ministry to all churches in a deanery. This misunderstanding was short-lived.” One who agreed with the definition later commented: “I work in the poorest parish in the diocese, and we have seen no support or help from the resource church.”
Asked about the impact of the resource church, only two said that church-planting had made a negative impact on the life of churches locally; three reported a negative impact in other ways. Most reported either a positive impact — largely through church-planting — or mixed impact. Concerns about transfer growth were mentioned. One respondent wrote: “Where plants have been successful, parishes have been revitalised. Where those plants, or proposed plants, have been insensitive or not appropriate, both individuals and church communities have been damaged.”
...
Eleven respondents said that the resource church had made “little impact” on the life of the wider community, while eight said that it had been positive. This was a striking finding, given that the Charity Commission filings of all three churches show social-action programmes in place, including programmes for young unemployed people, and local food provision.
The survey also asked: “Do you feel that you have been ‘resourced’ by the resource church in your area?” Most — 17 — replied “no”, while the six leaders of church-plants responded positively. “Resource churches revitalise other churches where the church-planting curate and a team are sent, but I think their impact locally is less significant,” one commented. “I think the main impact locally is raising faith to see that growth can happen, but they don’t have the time or resources to help every church in their deanery.”
“We have received very little or no benefit,” one respondent wrote. “Requests and emails are ignored or rejected. Funds and energy are restricted to HTB plants. They won’t share resources, staff, equipment, or learning. They don’t turn up to deanery meetings. They operate out of Church of England practice. A law unto themselves.”
...
One incumbent commented: “My church is in the Catholic tradition; so we have not been adversely affected, other than by a proposal to close us down so that the resource church could plant into us.”
I came here to see if this thread had changed title to "Compare Cottrell" or something. I suppose ABC having resigned may increase the pressure on ABY.
And the Church Times more recently, on how things are going with resource churches (2024):
Well, clearly the one thing resource churches have been good for is the resource churches themselves (and their associated network), and I'd draw two points out (putting aside their theology and motives for a minute):
Firstly, this is partly what I meant when I expressed doubt earlier that things were working well. Secondly and relatedly, this factionof the church have already grasped the point about institutional reproduction and are trying to address that, albeit in a way which is largely at odds with the rest of the Church of England.
I do wonder what happens with the resource churches when the initial funding runs out as these days they seem to be planting into less leafy areas and therefore may not become self supporting.
Anecdotally I'm aware of a couple of people currently in the cofe discernment process in different diocese who are/have been sent on placements to attend churches of different church-personship than they are acclimatised to. Which seems healthy and wise to me.
I do wonder what happens with the resource churches when the initial funding runs out as these days they seem to be planting into less leafy areas and therefore may not become self supporting.
I imagine they work on the assumption that a percentage will fail (which is probably a reasonable assumption on every level, as long as you provide follow-up for the cases where they do).
It's about time we had a female archbishop of Canterbury.
Aye, well, there's the rub. There's a whole cohort who will not accept that she's a priest at all, let alone ABofC.
So yes, the theological sexism is effectively enforced on the whole CofE.
To quote my fellow organist friend J, in a parish led by a Society AC priest, When they show up at the pearly gates and try to get into heaven they're going to find that God is very cross with them and she'll send them to bed with no supper.
I came here to see if this thread had changed title to "Compare Cottrell" or something. I suppose ABC having resigned may increase the pressure on ABY.
I do wonder what happens with the resource churches when the initial funding runs out as these days they seem to be planting into less leafy areas and therefore may not become self supporting.
I imagine they work on the assumption that a percentage will fail (which is probably a reasonable assumption on every level, as long as you provide follow-up for the cases where they do).
I remember reading somewhere that 2 out of 5 Baptist church-plants fail.
So I think it's not unreasonable to expect a high attrition rate irrespective of denomination (or denomination within a denomination in the case of HTB ).
It's probably the same for new Orthodox communities. I know of several in danger of closing down.
There's no guarantee of 'success' in any grouping.
I also know of an Anglican 'Fresh Expressions' experiment which went belly-up and where the incumbent left the CofE in the end for another denomination where, last I heard, he and his wife were doing reasonably well.
What shocked me in this particular instance was that the whole thing was brushed under the carpet in a similar way to how dud initiatives or mis-fires were swept under the carpet in the 'restorationist' new church scene I was involved with.
No attempt at post-match evaluation or reflection. It was as if the initiative had never taken place. Orwell and Koestler spring to mind.
I'm not saying things are any better elsewhere. Far from it.
In fairness, @Twangist in my experience the CofE is reasonably good at exposing ordinands to traditions and emphases that differ from those they are used to. That doesn't always follow through beyond their initial training though and there are plenty of mismatches in terms of placements.
In fairness to the HTB brigade too, I've heard of Anglo-Catholic clergy who've been pretty much left to their own devices and allowed to do their own thing while the HTB-ites do their thang with café services and so on and so forth.
The stats and feedback from the survey are important but behind them there are very real situations which can be good, bad or indifferent.
Oh dear. I dont see how he can survive. To lose two Archbishops over safeguarding looks a lot worse than carelessness (to misquote Lady Bracknell.)
I think the Bishop of Newcastle has it right.
Harrumph! I knew they shouldn't have appointed women bishops. It was bound to lead to this. Upstart women ousting the old school tie brigade...
Ok, apologies for the off-colour jest. I agree that +Newcastle is right to call these things out.
Technically speaking of course, they should have appointed female bishops before appointing female priests, but there we go ...
Some Orthodox I know think the CofE is in its death throes. Whether they are sorry about that or gleeful depends on their level of maturity, I'd suggest. Not that I lay any great claims to spiritual maturity but it's no pleasure to me to see fellow Christians go through the wringer, necessary as a purging process might be.
Besides, safe-guarding is an issue that all of us need to take far more seriously. Welby clearly didn't in his farewell speech.
I had some residual sympathy for him before that given that some of his erstwhile friends had turned on him. But after that piss-poor performance...
Yes, it is sad. The fella isn't all bad but he let himself down badly with that speech.
Turned a lot of folk who would have given him the benefit of the doubt against him sadly.
Absolutely - though I must admit as a non-fan who wasn’t/isn’t giving him the benefit of the doubt I’ve tracked slightly in the opposite direction on the basis it was so totally tin eared I almost felt sorry for him. I’ve never thought he was a bad man. Middle ranking bishop material maybe. Should have stayed at Coventry…
To be clear, I’m not remotely defending him or what he said, I just can’t believe he said it and err on the side of ‘tone deaf idiot’ more than conspiracy even so.
Coventry was very well rid of him, in my humble opinion. At the moment, I'm mostly shaking my head and wondering what will be left when the shit has finished going through the church's institutional ventilation.
Comments
So they do, but AFAIK the PCC does have some input and responsibility.
I have often wondered. With some of them you wonder whether they've either ignored what they were taught at vicar-school or whether the seminary itself had decided to ignore anything recognisably Anglican.
I've thought that with clergy from both the High and Low ends of the spectrum.
In practice, I suspect they tend to pick up whatever is flavour of the month in whatever 'stream' they swim in. Your New Winers will pick up whatever is de-rigeur at the conferences. The Society types will pick up on whatever they assume is happening across the Tiber but which most probably isn't 😉.
Theological colleges are rather out of favour. But more importantly what do training incumbents teach them?
A friend and I have after much (beer fueled and often football related) discussion come to the conclusion that much of life revolves around the following pair of (very bowlderised) maxims - "don't be rubbish (at what you do)" and "don't be an idiot".
Actually listening and observing what happens in your new church and seeing what really works and matters to folk can't be hard can it?
Treating people (especially those with a track record of consistent service) with respect and playing with a straight bat so that what you say and what you mean line up ought to be factored into the selection process of being a normal decent human being let alone a minister IMHO.
Whatever altitude are at on the proverbial candle surely these are the things that really matter.
I guess you don't find out until feet are firmly under the desk and then you are left with the choice to either grit your teeth or move on...
In my recent experience bu**er all. Of course, it could be that we had the misfortune to get 3 clerics on the trot who proved resistant to teaching but can one parish be so unfortunate to hit a losing streak like that without it being commonplace?
Oh, I've been challenged about not having the Gloria in Advent because "it isn't a penitential season" (a Staggers alumnus). That same cleric moaned about the hymns on Passion Sunday being "gloomy".
Another demanded that we have a new setting of the communion service of their choice, and decreed it wasn't necessary for it to be introduced to the congregation by me, or the choir, because "they'll pick it up quickly enough" - they never did.
And of course I was wrong to think that the paraphrase associated with Crimond didn't really work with Dominus Regit me - I mean, I'd only been "doing" church music for 40 years at that stage. The high-point of that musical genius's time with us was not realising until 20 minutes before a bride was due to arrive that the bagpiper booked for the in and out music couldn't also play the hymns. 😧😱🤣😂
@Arethosemyfeet "Training incumbents"??? More like the blind leading the blind.
One letter makes a plea that his replacement be someone with a pastoral heart.
Amen to that!
Applying the lens I described in an early post, I would suggest that this is a very clear indication that some factions are already failing at institutional reproduction to an extent that will prove fatal over time.
[Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation; it's clear that there's a divergence of views on things held to important]
I've been party to detailed accounts of this from both sides, and both sides are often right, in their own way. Common factors include frustration and mutual incomprehension regarding the ability to see the difference between the things that need changing and the things that don't.
I think that many of the people identified or mentioned on this thread have a fairly clear idea of the expression of church that they are looking for, and with which they are comfortable.
That includes clergy and those training for ordination - nobody that I've come across starts ordination training wanting to leave behind the expression of church with which they're familiar, and learn a new one. As for training posts: at best, they might expose ordinands to alternate approaches.
I also wonder if anyone goes forward for ordination with the intention of leading a sparsely-populated multi-parish benefice - I don't know if there's yet any aspect of any CofE training process that prepares ordinands or the newly-ordained for this, other than dropping them in such a situation and seeing what happens.
Meanwhile, on the subject of fresh expressions in rural contexts, has anyone come across the Lightwave Community and/or Sally Gaze, the CofE's first Archdeacon for Rural Mission?
That takes me back. (Probably to Campolo.)
1. I remember reading an address by George Carey to future ordinands, while he was still a theological college principal, basically saying that most of them came from largish suburban churches but would find themselves in very different situations once they'd been ordained. (I don't think he mentioned churchmanship though).
2. I know a church which last year sent someone for ordination. Fine - but said person was sent for their training placement back to their own parish. This seems bizarre: surely they should have been to somewhere that's very different, to give them the experience?
The juxtaposition was very convenient, as it meant he didn't have to travel far away from home (he had two little daughters), and he himself said how much his experience at Our Place had broadened his outlook.
Yes there are powerful arguments for some people to be able to go back to their own doorstep in appropriate circumstances. Their own doormat, on the other hand…
Yes, I think this is probably true.
Add other factors such as inappropriate placements then it's a recipe for disaster.
I know an instance, I won't say where, of a very earnest and capable evangelical vicar who was placed soon after her ordination into a rural parish with a regular congregation of around 8 old ladies who opposed anything and everything she tried to do. She left the ministry.
Ordinands going back to very close to their old stamping ground for placement is not a good thing, but is bound to happen when you have older, married people, sometimes with children, training for ministry.
I appreciate from all your posts on this thread that you're pretty fed up with not just with Justin Welby but the Church of England as a whole. I get it that you feel profoundly disengaged and may well have very understandable reasons for doing so. Could I start, though, please, by asking you who is the 'we' that you are invoking in here? 'We' = first person plural, including 'me' - i.e. in this case 'you'. On whose behalf other than yourself here are you speaking. Second, are you, or the others on whose behalf you are speaking, responsible for the choice of the last 25 years worth of archbishops, or for deciding what mission the Church of England should have adopted during that time, or in the future?
There are though, two more questions I would like to ask. The first is, rather than angry chuntering about what is wrong with the church, institutionally, what needs to be put to death, a totally negative vision, what is your positive vision? A negative vision, however strongly you or anyone else might feel about it, is not a vision, and is never a place to start. What would you like to see it be instead? And from that the second is what do you see the church as being for, its primary purpose?
I suppose I had better declare an interest. I would have thought the primary purpose of the church has to be some version of 'the assembly of the faithful', 'the body of Christ on earth'. That means that it is not an institution. The institution can never be anything more than an imperfect means to that end. Everything else, whatever my own, or your, or anyone else's, personal preferences might be, is collateral and probably trivial.
The plural was an error, which I didn't catch in time. But it was also an expression of my near-certainty that I am not alone in feeling the way I do - we just don't dare surface for fear of exactly this kind of attack. We are weary of waiting while the church spends huge amounts of time, effort, money and energy being noisily unbearable, for it to calm down and treat being human as being something which God thought was such a good idea he did it himself.
I think there is a difference between a vision or 'intention' and the kind of expensive programme or corporate fol-de-rol that @ThunderBunk alludes to and which so many of my Anglican friends find frustrating and debilitating. With good reason.
The tricky bit is how to rally people who are weary, frustrated or have widely different views of how to 'do' church into following a coherent 'vision' or strategy.
It shouldn't be 'top down' either but it does require leadership.
This applies anywhere and not just to the CofE of course.
The late Metropolitan Anthony Bloom once told his congregation that they should put more effort into 'being human' than striving to be Orthodox.
I knew of a Reformed Baptist congregation who set out to be as 'Reformed' capital R as was feasibly possible even if it killed them. It nearly did.
There is a balance of course. The various Orthodox jurisdictions don't have much by way of a strategy for mission or development. It tends to be a case of serving the Liturgy and hoping for the best.
On one level I think it behoves all of us to 'be human', to 'become what we are' and to get on with whatever we happen to do 'you in your small corner and I in mine' 😉 - yet in a 'synergia' kind of way we do need to 'work out our salvation in fear and trembling' - and that is not simply an individual thing. We are none of us saved alone.
I need you in order to be me.
How that 'works' in practice, I don't know. But a counsel of despair isn't a good place to start.
I say that to myself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydgjevx70o
I'm currently "between churches", like an actor who is "resting". I'm not sure I want to find a home in this nest of pervs and their enablers now.
We'd all hive off into independent groups of some kind or other and sooner or later fall out among ourselves.
But an interesting development and one not entirely unexpected.
Have you tried the Methodists?
Local level around here is all See of Oswestry types. I would be betraying the people who fought so hard against religious sexism to throw my lot in here.
Pervs or chauvinists. What a choice.
Funny how they cluster isn't it?
As I've said, other brands are available.
Clearly the RCs or Orthodox wouldn't be an option for you as they don't have women priests.
How many parishes does Oswestry have around you? I always thought they were thin on the ground.
I'm sure there are plenty of struggling Methodist churches that need a helping hand where you are. I have in-laws who have settled into one very happily not a million miles from you. They have women ministers and are pretty liberal on most issues.
The demographic may be older than you might wish though.
Andrew Greystone:
The Church Times on new forms of curacy (2021):
I came here to see if this thread had changed title to "Compare Cottrell" or something. I suppose ABC having resigned may increase the pressure on ABY.
Aye, well, there's the rub. There's a whole cohort who will not accept that she's a priest at all, let alone ABofC.
So yes, the theological sexism is effectively enforced on the whole CofE.
Well, clearly the one thing resource churches have been good for is the resource churches themselves (and their associated network), and I'd draw two points out (putting aside their theology and motives for a minute):
Firstly, this is partly what I meant when I expressed doubt earlier that things were working well. Secondly and relatedly, this factionof the church have already grasped the point about institutional reproduction and are trying to address that, albeit in a way which is largely at odds with the rest of the Church of England.
Anecdotally I'm aware of a couple of people currently in the cofe discernment process in different diocese who are/have been sent on placements to attend churches of different church-personship than they are acclimatised to. Which seems healthy and wise to me.
Oh dear. I dont see how he can survive. To lose two Archbishops over safeguarding looks a lot worse than carelessness (to misquote Lady Bracknell.)
I think the Bishop of Newcastle has it right.
Sure, it's not necessarily a sectarian point.
I imagine they work on the assumption that a percentage will fail (which is probably a reasonable assumption on every level, as long as you provide follow-up for the cases where they do).
To quote my fellow organist friend J, in a parish led by a Society AC priest, When they show up at the pearly gates and try to get into heaven they're going to find that God is very cross with them and she'll send them to bed with no supper.
If ++Cottrell should resign, who is the next most senior Bishop? London?
Or Cottrell Catastrophe?
I remember reading somewhere that 2 out of 5 Baptist church-plants fail.
So I think it's not unreasonable to expect a high attrition rate irrespective of denomination (or denomination within a denomination in the case of HTB
It's probably the same for new Orthodox communities. I know of several in danger of closing down.
There's no guarantee of 'success' in any grouping.
I also know of an Anglican 'Fresh Expressions' experiment which went belly-up and where the incumbent left the CofE in the end for another denomination where, last I heard, he and his wife were doing reasonably well.
What shocked me in this particular instance was that the whole thing was brushed under the carpet in a similar way to how dud initiatives or mis-fires were swept under the carpet in the 'restorationist' new church scene I was involved with.
No attempt at post-match evaluation or reflection. It was as if the initiative had never taken place. Orwell and Koestler spring to mind.
I'm not saying things are any better elsewhere. Far from it.
In fairness, @Twangist in my experience the CofE is reasonably good at exposing ordinands to traditions and emphases that differ from those they are used to. That doesn't always follow through beyond their initial training though and there are plenty of mismatches in terms of placements.
In fairness to the HTB brigade too, I've heard of Anglo-Catholic clergy who've been pretty much left to their own devices and allowed to do their own thing while the HTB-ites do their thang with café services and so on and so forth.
The stats and feedback from the survey are important but behind them there are very real situations which can be good, bad or indifferent.
Harrumph! I knew they shouldn't have appointed women bishops. It was bound to lead to this. Upstart women ousting the old school tie brigade...
Ok, apologies for the off-colour jest. I agree that +Newcastle is right to call these things out.
Technically speaking of course, they should have appointed female bishops before appointing female priests, but there we go ...
Some Orthodox I know think the CofE is in its death throes. Whether they are sorry about that or gleeful depends on their level of maturity, I'd suggest. Not that I lay any great claims to spiritual maturity but it's no pleasure to me to see fellow Christians go through the wringer, necessary as a purging process might be.
Besides, safe-guarding is an issue that all of us need to take far more seriously. Welby clearly didn't in his farewell speech.
I had some residual sympathy for him before that given that some of his erstwhile friends had turned on him. But after that piss-poor performance...
Apart from anything else, what parish - however needy - would want, or trust, him?
A sad end to his ministry, though.
Turned a lot of folk who would have given him the benefit of the doubt against him sadly.
Absolutely - though I must admit as a non-fan who wasn’t/isn’t giving him the benefit of the doubt I’ve tracked slightly in the opposite direction on the basis it was so totally tin eared I almost felt sorry for him. I’ve never thought he was a bad man. Middle ranking bishop material maybe. Should have stayed at Coventry…