That one is good. I also listened to Andrew Lloyd Weber’s which is magnificent. Amazing that both are not believers.
I do not think it is helpful to maintain that the two religions are essentially the same for the sake of a political narrative and/or political correctness.
Are recordings of the Conference sessions available?
I was very interested to learn that in medieval times churches were used for the community, for events, and even for fairs. There was less of a church/secular divide then because I suppose Christianity was integrated into all aspects of daily life rather than a space and time set aside. Similarly in daily life, devotion was part of the routine.
I don’t mind churches being used for community life, including post and advice. The proviso is the chancel should be set aside, but what happens in the nave can be used for other events.
However, if you were to visit many of the great Anglican cathedrals including St Paul’s, if you knew nothing of Christianity and had never heard the good news, you would probably be none the wiser when you left. People come in open and interested to learn, but nobody takes the opportunity to explain. There are no events or courses [such as Alpha, Christianity Explored or their kind] to help them or even preaching, save for ocassional prayers and services. We miss a great opportunity with those who have made the effort to visit us in the church.
Not the least of the problems is with Cathedral clergy, many of whom are there because they would be useless in parish life - in short the wrong sort of people. Many of them don’t believe all that stuff anyway.
Let’s see now. I moved from Wisconsin to California,with a break in Oregon, and then back to California.
My grand parents emigrated from Sweden to the U.S. before 1900.
So according to Tomlin, I’m some kind of migrant. Maybe I would be one if the great grandparents had moved to the U.S.
How does all of this make me a migrant? I’d love to know. I’d also like to know who isn’t a migrant.
David I too have been taken aback at the readiness of English churches to abandon the idea of sacred space. Sometimes these moves are regarded as innovative and praiseworthy. See for example St James West Hampstead, London, praised by its own diocese. A church complete with a fully functioning post office and a children’s helter-skelter. What nobody seems to ask about these initiatives is: do they bring people to church? Do more people come to hear the word of God, to share the sacrament, to be built up in Christian faith? When Ship of Fools went to the Sunday service there it found 25 people in congregation. Report and pix:
Mind you, there is something even more heart-rending: the sale of a church and its conversion into something completely secular. There are plenty in the UK. And the WSJ had a disturbing article not long ago on Europe’s churches, both Catholic and Protestant, that were up for sale, with pictures of R.C. St Joseph’s Arnhem, the Netherlands, now a skate board park.
I know that here we have no abiding city. And I know that in the words of Rick Warren, it’s the people not the steeple. But there is something disturbing about sacred images being ignored in a totally secular setting or even put to profane use: they become a counter-symbol.
I can’t read the whole article, but from just looking at it, my observation is that most liberals think everything is about race/ethnicity. They are like the man whose only tool is a hammer, so all problems become a nail. Whether they really are nails or not becomes irrelevant.
What a boring list.
I would have included Legend about the Kray twins, notorious London gangsters, with Tom Hardy brilliantly playing both.
And what about the tragic Amy a feature-length documentary about Amy Winehouse?
That brought a smile, KH+. I sometimes wonder if the political pundits are the worst political disease of all…
I could quite imagine two adjacent dioceses within the Church of England permitting or prohibiting divorce, and recognizing or not recognizing the leadership of women. It wouldn’t be comfortable, but it would be possible.
That explains a lot about how things got to where they are now.
In an election where the pundits have been consistently wrong on the night of the Iowa results the pundits were surprised that they were wrong.
Wasn’t her father a doctor?
Here’s a really wild idea. Instead of turning cathedrals into event venus, why don’t they turn them into churches? Get some Bible believing, Jesus loving clergy and start an evangelical revival/revolution. Truthfully, do you know how many successful churches in ACNA/PEARUSA would give anything to just be able to have a building? And these guys have amazing buildings and can’t even figure out what they are supposed to be used for. Just a thought.
A good event—I was happy this year that Mere Anglicanism and the March for Life were on different weeks, so that I could participate in both.
May they go in peace, to love and serve the Lord.
I could not agree with Katherine more. The conference speakers were powerful, articulate and caused much thinking. The worship services were moving with powerful sermons by the Rev. Chris Royer of Anglican Frontier Missions.
While the risk to Western countries is high, and will continue to be, note that at this point the vast majority of deaths are Muslims at the hands of other Muslims. One hopes the still-rational among them will begin to notice, as the President of Egypt has.
This also describes American inner-cities, which are more violent than some of these other areas and account for the large majority of violent crime in the United States.
Great - very encouraging. A thoughtful article on what looks like a pioneering initiative. More please of both.
Um yes, and no.
Certainly history was made by young men. You were old if you were lucky enough to reach the age of 40, and this may explain some of the conquests of those like 24 year old Alexander the Great who were young men, who probably would not have inherited power until they were much older in modern times.
But while it is certainly true that war is a young man’s game, who are the leaders, and are they any the less aggressive for being older?
The Soviet Union was at its most aggressive when it was run by the geriatocracy, and from Robert Mugabe to Osama bin Laden to Mullah Omah to al Baghdadi, as leaders have aged they have only become more ruthless and aggressive. In the modern age, it is the over 40’s who have led and given the theoretical underpinings of the most aggresive movements and states. Looking at the world today, I see no evidence that there is less conflict with older leaders, quite the reverse.
While the fighters may be young men, the leaders are older men. Who are the more dangerous?
Somewhere over some rainbow skittled sky or other.
Proper prior polling promotes point of view desired. Stir. Repeat. Do it at a Primates gathering. Stir. Repeat. Do it in CoE. Stir. Repeat. Do it in Australia. Stir. Repeat.
Hmmm. Where have I seen this before? EcUsa and AcCanada. Triumphally failing and exporting madly.
Terrific conference, powerful presentations, much food for thought.
“There is no evidence that any religion or ideology is a primary motivator of terrorism.” What planet does this guy live on?
Perhaps in addition to the problems with this poll identified by Peter and Paul, there may be a couple of more subtle points related to the demographics of the Church of England.
Most polls including this one, will ensure that the sample is representative of the general population in age, gender and so on. That is a real problem.
Firstly, the average age of CofE congregants is said to be 62, whereas the average age of the population is 40. This means that when the YouGov Poll claims that a higher percentage of younger CofE members are more relaxed about same sex marriage, any figures on which this is based will be slanted because the actual demographic of the CofE means that the number holding this view among the young compared with the old will be overstated.
Secondly, there is no reason to think that this situation will change as these young people age and become elderly. This is for two reasons:
- that the demographic has always been so - often people explore Christianity as they get older, as they realise they are not going to live for ever and the search becomes more imperative as well as older people returning to church after they have retired and their children have grown up leaving them with more time. That is why I am more sanguine about our ageing population of congregants and that is because our recruitment, outside of the young in London, tends to be from the middle aged.
- that there is a tendency for people to become more conservative as they age, so those younger congregants will not necessarily carry their views with them unchanged.
So for those reasons, I am far from convinced that the way this poll has been structured provides much useful information. The reality is that we in the church are predominantly past the first flush of youth, and that includes members like Jane Ozanne who engage in advocacy for this and that. These advocates, like the rest of us are no spring chickens, however right on, relevant and trendy we may like to think ourselves to be.
Of course there is one factor which may change opinions, and that is failure to preach biblically on this matter, and there we have a real problem, right from the top.
I agree - as a rule, affiliates - ie those who say they belong but don’t attend - show the same behaviour and attitudes as the general population.
Attenders show different behaviour and attitudes.
I would like to see a survey of attenders.
I can’t copy it into here, but the actual results are here:
It looks like there was no attempt to ask about actual religious behaviour, so there is no way to split out the attenders from the affiliates. A couple of points:
1. There were not 6000 odd Anglicans in the survey - the number was 986.
2. Even with all the affiliates, the “more support” same sex marriage was not a dramatic “more”. The actual numbers were 42% saying it was right 39% saying it was wrong, and 19% saying don’t know. I would have thought the 3% was well within the margin of error.
Finally, I think the “don’t knows” are really interesting. I would have said that it looks like people who really opposed same-sex marriage but thought it was too politically incorrect to say so went for the “don’t know” option. Just a supposition, but if I were campaigning for same-sex marriage I wouldn’t be assuming they were indifferent.
Before you believe any of the Telegraph article or any claim from the poll it references- read this
All the poll actually demonstrates is that a large number of people who have not darkened the door of a church or put a dime (or shilling) in the plate since their childhood claim to be members of the Church of England.
I forgot to add “Huckleberry Finn”. The Bible would also be a nice addition. Even if you don’t believe it, it is nearly impossible to understand Western literature from the Canterbury Tales to at least the 1990s without a basic understanding of it. #2—OK. I didn’t think my understanding of Harry Potter was controversial. I thought my statement about Jane Austen would be, but not HP.
I think there is a trend to always dismiss as “fluff” books that are recent and popular. I came to respect Harry Potter a lot more after having to read the series aloud repeatedly to 4 boys. The stories are beautifully crafted and written, and I appreciated them more and more as I read them over and over. I have done the same with some of the other books in the list ... and they did not all stack up nearly as well.
Unify it with Jewish calculation! It is Pascha!
Blessings on all those participating in this year’s version of Mere Anglicanism, organizers, presenters, and attenders alike. Alas, I can’t be there myself. But I always look forward to watching the video’s later. Especially this year, because the topic of seriously coming to terms with the profound challenge posed by a resurgent Islam is so crucial and timely.
Or perhaps he is acting like the person he claims to be.
Thanks, Kendall. Nice picture to embellish the prayer.
Three comments pertaining to the importance of Aquinas for Anglicans.
First, anyone who loves Richard Hooker and appreciates his crucial role in the evolution of Anglican theology should explore the Thomistic roots of much of Hooker’s system of thought. There are whole sections of Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity that are basically drawn straight out of Aquinas. Not least, Hooker took over from Aquinas a deep appreciation for the importance of natural law, and the fundamental Thomistic principle that “Grace is not opposed to nature, but perfects it.”
Second, I contend that Hooker was in fact the first major Protestant theologian who really understood and appreciated Aquinas. Alas, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, etc., did not, and as a result of being ignorant of Catholic theology at its best, the Reformation took an unnecessarily drastic form, throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater more than it had to. It is one of the great tragedies of history that so many of the Reformers, as ex-priests, were only really familiar with debased and inferior forms of medieval Catholic theology, especially the Nominalism of guys like Gabriel Biel.
But Hooker was a third generation Protestant, and by his time (the 1590s), too much blood had been spilled and too many bridges burned, for Protestantism to take a more moderate form in the Hooker mold. Sad.
Third, we Anglicans have never been known for producing good systematic theology. We have no Melancthon or Calvin (or Chemnitz or Beza) that we can look to, as we are such a diverse and inconsistent lot. But as far as I’m concerned, Aquinas is the greatest systematic theologian of all time. His over 3500 page Summa Theologica surpasses all other works of its type in its thoroughness and rigor, and in its faithfulness to the consensus of the ancient Fathers. Not that Aquinas was always right. No human being is. But he sets the gold standard for that kind of vital theological enterprise. We have so much that we can and should learn from the Angelic Doctor.
More a historical theologian than a systematic one myself
That’s a fine list. I think Harry Potter isn’t necessary to be “educated”. Its fluff, but fun and culturally significant fluff. Great Expectations is not my favorite Dickens book—I’d personally pick “A Tale of Two Cities” or “David Copperfield”. And I could leave Jane Austen off altogether. The good thing about her is all of her books have the same plot, so you only need to read one! I’d add “A Separate Peace”.
4 Ross Gill
Ah - an example of Johnson’s First Law of Episcopal Thermodynamics
#3, I think that’s already been tried just to be in solidarity and all that.
Perhaps he sees weakness in modern day mainline Protestants and secretly hopes to shepherd them back to Rome.
Perhaps they could wear yashmaks and burkhas as part of their outreach to Muslims?
Just standardisation I expect. Probably a European Union directive to require [along with straight bananas] that EU citizens’ holidays are synchronised in Athens and Madrid
I can’t read the article, but why would a unified date for Easter hurt tourism? One would think it would increase tourism.
Interesting. Still a unified date would be nice.
Read the whole communique. It has a trojan horse also. Hint: border crossing versus same sex blessings in the Windsor Report.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Canada. I bet the can gets kicked down the road to see how the dust settles on the TEc action.
What a fantastic read. Perspective.
Might be a challenge for English female vicars.
What a glaring, jarring contrast to anything KJS ever put out that she called a “sermon”. This should be fed to every TEC priest and bishop - it would be for at least a few like Puddleglum intentionally putting his foot in the fire.
Or Muslims could shave and reach out to Christians.
Islam shares the same basic roots as shalom, SLM, with the vowels differing due to the differences between Hebrew and Arabic, connotation, and so on. Islam as Pb notes is “peace through submission”, submission to God, and not just any old God, but /the/ God, Allah. If you submit to Allah by becoming a Muslim or a good little tax-paying dhimmi, you’ll have peace.
I wrote the following awhile ago that bears repeating here:
Time has shown again and again that Muslim communities, left to their own devices, will eventually breed at least a small fringe element, radicalized and intent on attacking Islam’s enemies. The majority, even if non-violent, will most likely do nothing and balk at the suggestion that they deal with the radicals in their midst. I read quotes soon after the recent attack in SoCal [San Bernardino] from two Muslim leaders who were insistent that it was unfair to expect them to inform upon radicals in their mosques. I don’t think that’s an isolated reaction. After all, we see it all the time when it comes to [RCC] homosexual clergy and their enablers who are all too willing to look the other way for whatever reason.
Or regress rather than progress?
Thank you Bishop Jacob. Your words of encouragement are Christ’s words. I will. I will keep my eyes on Jesus. God’s peace and strength to you as you pour out the Good News and may the ears of those that are in hearing distance be opened. May the scales put on by customs fall from the customized eyes. What a blessing! Thank you for coming to America.
Return to blog homepage
Return to Mobile view (headlines)