Andrew why the do you think the progerssives where more successful in securing their vision in the ECUSA, Scandinavian Lutheran churches, reformed churches on the continent and Church of Scotland compared the COE? What did progressives do right in those churches compared to their counterparts in COE?
Money, mostly. The Scandinavian Lutheran churches are funded by taxes, even if these are voluntary. I stayed with a Swedish priest friend last year and her deanery had 90 paid employees. She was slightly envious of the British system because — she said — people here worked for ideals rather than money.
The taxes that fund all this are understood as a part of citizenship. They other half of this Erastian bargains is that the have to go along with the state's views on equality and sexual morality and these in turn reflect those of the uncommitted laity. Linda Woodhead has written in favour of this thought I can't remember where. In any case this is not a strategy that could be pursued in England. No one is going to introduce a church tax here.
Germany has a similar system. I don't know anything about French protestantism. So far as I know, nothing about the Church of Scotland is successful at the moment. In ECUSA the progressives kept hold of the money, but not much else.
You’re right about Save the Parish’s figures not adding up – I noticed that their flowchart on where the money goes (https://www.savetheparish.com/church-of-england-finances/) doesn’t mention the £120 million that the Church Commissioners spend on clergy pensions. The massive problem with funding those has always been that most clergy and spouses are clean-living enough that smoking/drinking etc don’t carry them off prematurely as often as other pensioners. And given that it’s increasingly hard to get any volunteers for administrative posts (churchwarden/treasurer) even in flourishing parishes, I think Tim Wyatt’s right that returning more management of assets to them isn’t going to work.
I suspect that the hard line evangelicals would be willing to leave the Church of England, whose “brand” isn’t really important to them, but they would want to take their church buildings with them. That was the big issue when ACNA left ECUSA, and I suspect that’s likely to be the sticking point for the C of E progressives.
The only way I can see the progressives surviving is by amalgamating congregations in towns and then selling off redundant churches. As ECUSA show, in larger towns and cities you can build a decent congregation who want a mix of reasonably traditional litany and community-building for social action. (I’ve attended worship at ECUSA churches a few times, and that is very much their constituency).
Do C of E progressives have any ideas for rural ministry? Could you get enough married gay priests and women priests financially supported by their partners to make them willing to take on a NSM and “house for duty” role in a rural parish, which is cheaper to fund? That seems to be how the Episcopal church in Scotland sustains some rural presence, as well as by using retired priests as NSMs.
Thank you for this. I think the first two paragraphs are spot on; not sure about the prospects of amalgamation. People are attached to particular church buildings and congregations. That's one reason why church planting is powerful — everyone involved has made a sacrifice of their old attachments.
Your plan for the rural church asks a lot of the partners of these NSMs. Given enough broadband, it might work, though.
Also, especial thanks for the link off your profile to The Great Gender Divergence. The news that Sarah Blaffer Hrdy has written a new book is very cheering. Her Mother Nature was one of the best and least Flintstoney works of evolutionary psychology. I have never forgotten the photographs of very differently nourished male and female babies in the Punjab.
Which said, a church restricted to evangelicals would be disestablished in fairly short order, so its voice would be a lot quieter. Who in the mainstream media reports on the pronouncements of the Methodist church or the URC?
Given how spectacularly awful most of the press commentary on Makin has been I don't know that silence wouldn't be better. Part of the trouble the church is in is that it keeps trying to supply moral leadership and no one wants that even when it's on offer.
Andrew why the do you think the progerssives where more successful in securing their vision in the ECUSA, Scandinavian Lutheran churches, reformed churches on the continent and Church of Scotland compared the COE? What did progressives do right in those churches compared to their counterparts in COE?
Money, mostly. The Scandinavian Lutheran churches are funded by taxes, even if these are voluntary. I stayed with a Swedish priest friend last year and her deanery had 90 paid employees. She was slightly envious of the British system because — she said — people here worked for ideals rather than money.
The taxes that fund all this are understood as a part of citizenship. They other half of this Erastian bargains is that the have to go along with the state's views on equality and sexual morality and these in turn reflect those of the uncommitted laity. Linda Woodhead has written in favour of this thought I can't remember where. In any case this is not a strategy that could be pursued in England. No one is going to introduce a church tax here.
Germany has a similar system. I don't know anything about French protestantism. So far as I know, nothing about the Church of Scotland is successful at the moment. In ECUSA the progressives kept hold of the money, but not much else.
You’re right about Save the Parish’s figures not adding up – I noticed that their flowchart on where the money goes (https://www.savetheparish.com/church-of-england-finances/) doesn’t mention the £120 million that the Church Commissioners spend on clergy pensions. The massive problem with funding those has always been that most clergy and spouses are clean-living enough that smoking/drinking etc don’t carry them off prematurely as often as other pensioners. And given that it’s increasingly hard to get any volunteers for administrative posts (churchwarden/treasurer) even in flourishing parishes, I think Tim Wyatt’s right that returning more management of assets to them isn’t going to work.
I suspect that the hard line evangelicals would be willing to leave the Church of England, whose “brand” isn’t really important to them, but they would want to take their church buildings with them. That was the big issue when ACNA left ECUSA, and I suspect that’s likely to be the sticking point for the C of E progressives.
The only way I can see the progressives surviving is by amalgamating congregations in towns and then selling off redundant churches. As ECUSA show, in larger towns and cities you can build a decent congregation who want a mix of reasonably traditional litany and community-building for social action. (I’ve attended worship at ECUSA churches a few times, and that is very much their constituency).
Do C of E progressives have any ideas for rural ministry? Could you get enough married gay priests and women priests financially supported by their partners to make them willing to take on a NSM and “house for duty” role in a rural parish, which is cheaper to fund? That seems to be how the Episcopal church in Scotland sustains some rural presence, as well as by using retired priests as NSMs.
Thank you for this. I think the first two paragraphs are spot on; not sure about the prospects of amalgamation. People are attached to particular church buildings and congregations. That's one reason why church planting is powerful — everyone involved has made a sacrifice of their old attachments.
Your plan for the rural church asks a lot of the partners of these NSMs. Given enough broadband, it might work, though.
Also, especial thanks for the link off your profile to The Great Gender Divergence. The news that Sarah Blaffer Hrdy has written a new book is very cheering. Her Mother Nature was one of the best and least Flintstoney works of evolutionary psychology. I have never forgotten the photographs of very differently nourished male and female babies in the Punjab.
And today, bodying bowling is ubiquitous and entirely acceptable.
Helmets and padding presumably make a difference.
Which said, a church restricted to evangelicals would be disestablished in fairly short order, so its voice would be a lot quieter. Who in the mainstream media reports on the pronouncements of the Methodist church or the URC?
Given how spectacularly awful most of the press commentary on Makin has been I don't know that silence wouldn't be better. Part of the trouble the church is in is that it keeps trying to supply moral leadership and no one wants that even when it's on offer.