'National Church' - a relatively recent term which epitomises the criticism which is being levelled at those in leadership, quite possibly by way of avoiding, scapegoating, the discernment you are calling for.
Your final phrase calls for another blog! Leadership is not the same as episcope, oversight.
The Anglican Centre in Rome, among other partners, has just held a webinar in which various ecumenical representatives discussed their impressions of the recent Roman Catholic assembly on 'synodality'. The final document, 'For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission’ offers biblical, theological and pastoral nourishment the like of which we haven’t seen coming from Anglican hands for some years, decades even. Leadership is both visionary and consensual, synodal but not in the quasi political across the aisle sense. Isn’t it time to revisit the overused but valuable statement , ‘We are the body of Christ’?
I have thought for some time that, even allowing for the less systematic traditions of Anglican theology, that Roman Catholic theology shows a depth and quality of thought we do not even attempt. The relationship between a term like leadership (one that is very hard to avoid!) and others like episkope is definitely part of the question I suggest needs some exploration
Thanks, Keith. I would also suggest there's a conversation to be had ecclesiologically (rather than historically where we're still conditioned by Tudor autocracy) about whether the "national church" shares powers downwards to dioceses on a papal model, or whether the dioceses agree to share certain powers upwards on a conciliar model.
Interesting point Doug. My instinctive response is the latter and I agree that it is an important distinction. I don't think it alters my suggestion that it is the role of the national church to facilitate/enable/inform/lead on discussion about identity/future state as they would be doing so in service to the wider church and, I assume, the bishops would be involved anyway
Probably it doesn’t make much difference to your main point, but synod technically allows any diocese to take a lead, provided they can get sufficient assent.
Thanks Keith. I am interested in this comment: "they are offered as simplistic solutions to complex problems and result in pressure on dioceses and parishes to pursue policies and practices about which they have not been consulted." Can you give some examples?
Thanks for reading and commenting Peter. There is a longer answer in my PhD thesis! but here is a rather brief and unnuanced reply. IMO most recent national church policy has been aimed at church growth. This was particularly evident in the Renewal and Reform Programme. Church growth is generally understood as numerical growth. There was no national conversation about this. R&R was launched in 2015 and consisted of significant changes to the development of senior leaders, changes in training of clergy and so forth with the purpose of growth. I'm not suggesting this was all bad or anything but it was not based on any deep analysis of where we were, why we were where we were or where we thought we might try and go; no consideration of what God might be saying to us. It was just assumed that the answer to loss of numbers was to focus on gaining more numbers. This is what I mean by simplistic (not systemic) solutions about which there has been little if any consultation. The pressure issue is to do with the promotion of particular models of church (e.g. HTB); the preference for appointing senior clergy who will get stuff done, the channelling of funding to growth projects and the push from the top on these matters. It is no surprise to me that an organisation like 'Save the Parish' was started. To my mind it was inevitable that there would be push back.
'National Church' - a relatively recent term which epitomises the criticism which is being levelled at those in leadership, quite possibly by way of avoiding, scapegoating, the discernment you are calling for.
Your final phrase calls for another blog! Leadership is not the same as episcope, oversight.
The Anglican Centre in Rome, among other partners, has just held a webinar in which various ecumenical representatives discussed their impressions of the recent Roman Catholic assembly on 'synodality'. The final document, 'For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission’ offers biblical, theological and pastoral nourishment the like of which we haven’t seen coming from Anglican hands for some years, decades even. Leadership is both visionary and consensual, synodal but not in the quasi political across the aisle sense. Isn’t it time to revisit the overused but valuable statement , ‘We are the body of Christ’?
I have thought for some time that, even allowing for the less systematic traditions of Anglican theology, that Roman Catholic theology shows a depth and quality of thought we do not even attempt. The relationship between a term like leadership (one that is very hard to avoid!) and others like episkope is definitely part of the question I suggest needs some exploration
Thanks, Keith. I would also suggest there's a conversation to be had ecclesiologically (rather than historically where we're still conditioned by Tudor autocracy) about whether the "national church" shares powers downwards to dioceses on a papal model, or whether the dioceses agree to share certain powers upwards on a conciliar model.
Interesting point Doug. My instinctive response is the latter and I agree that it is an important distinction. I don't think it alters my suggestion that it is the role of the national church to facilitate/enable/inform/lead on discussion about identity/future state as they would be doing so in service to the wider church and, I assume, the bishops would be involved anyway
Probably it doesn’t make much difference to your main point, but synod technically allows any diocese to take a lead, provided they can get sufficient assent.
A stimulating contribution to thinking through complex problems: astute and constructive critique.
Thanks Keith. I am interested in this comment: "they are offered as simplistic solutions to complex problems and result in pressure on dioceses and parishes to pursue policies and practices about which they have not been consulted." Can you give some examples?
Thanks for reading and commenting Peter. There is a longer answer in my PhD thesis! but here is a rather brief and unnuanced reply. IMO most recent national church policy has been aimed at church growth. This was particularly evident in the Renewal and Reform Programme. Church growth is generally understood as numerical growth. There was no national conversation about this. R&R was launched in 2015 and consisted of significant changes to the development of senior leaders, changes in training of clergy and so forth with the purpose of growth. I'm not suggesting this was all bad or anything but it was not based on any deep analysis of where we were, why we were where we were or where we thought we might try and go; no consideration of what God might be saying to us. It was just assumed that the answer to loss of numbers was to focus on gaining more numbers. This is what I mean by simplistic (not systemic) solutions about which there has been little if any consultation. The pressure issue is to do with the promotion of particular models of church (e.g. HTB); the preference for appointing senior clergy who will get stuff done, the channelling of funding to growth projects and the push from the top on these matters. It is no surprise to me that an organisation like 'Save the Parish' was started. To my mind it was inevitable that there would be push back.