What limits the Church of England to just 39 Articles?

The joust is real, but though the horses are running hard, and the steel is clanging hard on steel, the armour is hollow. What is disquieting about That Topic and This Other Topic is that they concern the same doctrinal locus of creation, and that neither side of either issue offers a really compelling account of the created order whilst pressing for sometimes radical steps that require such an account to be meaningful. What is the meaning of the differentiation of the sexes? Can gender apart from sex carry that meaning? Can an individual carry that meaning, apart from the opposite sex? How does all of this map onto the Church as a sign of the New Creation? Perhaps official reports I haven't read settle all this, but even if so, they are not being cited in our discussions.

Silence about these and other questions seems to reflect weaknesses in the partisan theologies that are in play, but the parties themselves are so well-institutionalised that failure is not having the consequences for their theologies that it should have. Instead, considerations of loyalty to faction or past positions or principles of conflict management are, in a quite decadent way, playing the part that a plausible Christian theology should play in these discussions. Faced with a muddle, people are carrying on, sometimes with admirable improvisatory skill. But they shouldn't be doing that.

Since we humans are seen as doing what those like us like to do, unless and until there is explicit reason to see a higher understanding at work, this decadence means that, even should a church make the right choice, it cannot be seen as doing anything kerygmatic, nor can its implementation be guided from deep and widely-shared understanding. Ready acceptance of such decadence is a bigger threat to the vigour of any church's life and mission than most missteps would be. That, esteemed Pluralist, is the monoculture I worry about, both here and there.

If the Church of England does not do the normal things about either Topic, will more of the normal people leave it? Perhaps. Then again, if it only seems to do the normal thing to earnestly show itself to be very, very normal, then is there reason to pay attention to it? Anything but a theologically-grounded integrity leads to one sucker's choice after another.

I am not sure the risk is a monoculture, but I just think that a predicament exists that needs tackling - that the Church of England is too broad theologically and these issues are going to clip its wings.

If women become significant leaders alongside men then those who can't agree will in the end have to go elsewhere. Otherwise it is many women who will end up going elsewhere. It is the same with the gay issue. Perhaps including one will help to include the other; perhaps women will be included in full ministry and blessings and gay people will not and realise they have to go elsewhere.

On geographical holes and traditionalist consolidation-- Thanks, Pluralist, for a quick explanation. Alas, it is hard to assess these considerations without plotting them on a map. Perhaps one of the villagers has seen such a map?

Indeed, the changing geography of English life may open other unexplored questions about an ecclesiology fit for contemporary mission in English society. If, for admittedly crude example, the increasing geographical segregation of English political parties is any indication of broader thinking in the electorate, it may be that the possibilities for evangelism and other witness may differ by place more than they did a generation ago. In that event, the Church of England may find that it can best maintain "a Christian presence in every community" by carefully tending its diversity, and helping its fishers to find the best waters for their several sorts of nets. Is anyone in England using GIS to study this in a serious way?

Meanwhile, with respect to That Other Topic, the question is-- are geographical holes and traditionalist consolidation really worse than the alternative to a person who supports the majority position on the ordination of women but wants to preserve the parties that happen to oppose it somewhat intact? It is entirely reasonable to believe that a great church could be strengthened by the ministry of women, but would be weakened by becoming, in certain respects, a sort of monoculture too narrow to reach the empirical diversity of life and opinion in its provinces. In that belief, putting the Gospel above all other values, one might look for the way to get the most good with the least harm, and rely on the loyalty of all to an understanding that the needs of the flock come first.

The reason a non-geographical dioceses was rejected was firstly it would create dioceses with geographical holes in them, with authority going a different way, and secondly because it would have facilitated a Conservative Evangelical entryism that they are seeking to do with more difficulty without that help. The FCA and the few colleges and bishops by theology would all focus on the other diocese. This is why the Amendments have caused so much bother, because they allow choice of alternative bishops by theology. All these processes of decisions are about the Church of England discovering where its actual boundaries lie in practical terms.

Where are any positive proposals for 'weaker brothers' who want to stay in line with the historical position re scripture of the cofE and the church catholic? For example, why not have a non-geographic diocese to be generous to those who cannot go against their consciences. We've already lost people on this issue..... Some didn't seem to care about their departure.

...Why are growing churches in the cofE taxed highly by huge diocesan demands when perhaps investing in growth and not decline is a good idea.

Nersen--  I'm astonished that there is not more discussion-- creative, critical, compassionate, and empirical-- of the sort of Anglican order that would best serve the gospel now. Thank you for these two positive proposals. We might also recall Dave's wish for missions to be free to expand over parish boundaries. Thoughts?

(3)-- Pluralist wishes that they would all leave the Church of England to become honest Unitarians

No I don't. I have supported such people where they are. If they come across, they are welcomed of course. That I might wish they did come across is only a distant ideal. They don't do it and they get my support for their decision, but I will criticise the basis on which they do it if it involves covering up, sleight of hand.

For many of them, Jesus is not unique but definitive. I want to know on what basis he is definitive. There are no league tables possible from history, because we do not know Jesus's ethical condition nor that of others including others unknown. We know much more in history about Gandhi, for example, who also seems more politically relevant in comparison. I argue against the moral perfection of Jesus, and some Anglican clergy have agreed with me privately.

Uniqueness is a dogma statement, so are claims of incarnation and resurrection. You can't work your way into incarnation, unless of course we are all incarnate in some way (which is another prior statement) nor is there history in resurrection. Historical methods open are very limited and indeed limiting.

I knew of a book reviewer who wrote to me about ceasing to be an Anglican Christian, liberal, and became a Buddhist. It meant more sense to her and her understanding of spiritual practice. She started learning the important and deep concepts. I spent time with Western Buddhists but in the end I don't leave actual rebirth as 'agnostic' with talk of renewing oneself; I actually state I don't believe in reincarnation nor in a dharma that relies on that bridge across two different lives. Nor do I give up the selective use of Christian language. So that makes me go in a specific direction and not all liberals who might fall out of Christianity will want to go in my direction but find a more directive path instead.

I do meet Unitarians who remain strong liberal Christians and I wonder why they left. One in my congregation cites the gay debate (and is heterosexual) and clearly this must be costing Christian congregations their more enlightened people.

One fundamental  disagreement among those who believe that Christianity is in some sense true is whether or not God and Christ did do and did say, as matters of fact, all the actions and statements the Bible attributes to them.

Hi Phil-- Thanks for your interest. Yes, there is an evident difference between (1) those who believe that the NT's accounts of the Resurrection were constrained by a single reality prior to them all-- God raising Jesus from the dead-- and (2) those who believe that they were constrained by variations of a bultmannian kerygma-- Jesus is Lord!-- that is "metaphorised" by the several retellings of the story of the Resurrection that fit the conditions of 1st C communities. Just as obviously, there is a further difference between even the latter and (3) those who believe a sort of gospel of ethical sentiments that are only coincidentally carried by the narrative form of those accounts.

The villagers in Fulcrum tend to agree enthusiastically on (3)-- Pluralist wishes that they would all leave the Church of England to become honest Unitarians, and so does Nersen and nearly everyone else who comments. In the wider church beyond, however, there are some (2) who think that the misguided (3) can and should be reached, whilst having a viscerally phobic aversion to (1) that is warmly reciprocated by most of those who believe it.

Personally, I grew up hearing (3), replaced that with the (2) that was taught in university, and then found over the years that (2) exfoliated quite organically into (1).

Obviously our view on this has an enormous influence on our convictions about who God and Christ are and what they are like.

In principle, yes, and that is the delight of an integrated understanding. However, in practise, I have seen disappointingly few (1) who think all that clearly about who God and Christ are and what they are like. Many (1) just sound like (3) with a darker set of sentiments, and no christology, ecclesiology, or kerygma at all. The narcissism of suspiciously small differences often eclipses the truly consequential disagreements that one would expect to find. Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Bowman

What you say about different ways of reading the Bible has some truth, although it would be easier to interact with your view if you gave some specific examples. But I wonder whether you would agree (to repeat myself yet again) that one fundamental  disagreement among those who believe that Christianity is in some sense true is whether or not God and Christ did do and did say, as matters of fact, all the actions and statements the Bible attributes to them. Obviously our view on this has an enormous influence on our convictions about who God and Christ are and what they are like. Probably you have realised that this and related questions (e.g. about God ‘speaking’) have been disagreed over at some length on various threads.

Phil Almond

Hi Tony-- You are right that good precedents are hard to find. In many or most churches, LGBT dissensus is more the symptom than the cause of a deeper malaise in which differences in temperament among churchmen, deepened by training and tradition, have made it hard for them to find the common ground to live the life of the Church in a united way. For example, there are differences that are hard to bridge between those who tend to minimise historical context in reading the scriptures and take what they read in a contemporary sense, and those who read the same scriptures as historical texts and make sense of them hermeneutically. One can even find some haters here and there whose minds "demonise" one set of readers of the scriptures or the other.

Faced with the frustration of such differences, those in traditions with a low ecclesiology or no ecclesiology can just split, split, split, and feel none the worse. But if one is committed in Christ to a higher ecclesiology with a visible public ministry to the people of a place, one should overcome inevitable differences to find his will in the common work. Today, the difficulty in doing the latter is that understanding is very diffuse everywhere in the Church. The more orthodox Christians are shaped by a few robust traditions splendidly isolated from each other, and the rest are often just muddled, erratic, or contrary. Some would like to get more done by reducing the isolation of the orthodoxies and the estrangement of those able to learn to think with the Church. The search is for a way to do that.

... or I suppose you might say it's like the removal of Nazi party-members from public office in West Germany in the late 40s/50s. I had the impression that truth and reconciliation in S. Africa was about what people had done rather than the ideology that supposedly justified it. And the purging of so-called communist regimes seems to have more to do with practices rather than a definable policy. Either way, these seem rather unhelpful comparisons if they are aimed at other christians who don't believe that lgbt people or (as it might be in some quarters) women are excluded from the full ministry of the church. Or am I missing something -- which is more than likley?

How do you identify the anomie? There is no agreement that there is even an anomie? One group might say there is, but the others don't.