The Church Mouse Blog

Who's who in the new look Gafcon setup

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 06:30:00 +0000

The realignment of the Anglican Communion has been realigned. In this two part series, Mouse sets out who is not in charge and what it all means.

For those who have not been following closely (and Mouse envies you if that is the case), Gafcon is a grouping of conservatives formed 2008 in protest at the appointment of an openly gay bishop in The Episcopal Church in the US. The grouping is an odd one, consisting of both those within the Anglican Communion and those outside it who nevertheless call themselves Anglicans. Some are member churches within the Anglican Communion, most notably a number of provinces in Africa. Some are dioceses and individuals within churches in the Anglican Communion, such as Sydney Diocese. Others are groups who have either split from their Anglican Communion churches or formed as conservative rivals to them, such as the Anglican Church in North America who split from TEC and the Anglican Mission in England, a Gafcon missionary arm.

Until recently, Gafcon was led by a council of Primates from the provinces who formed the bloc. But with much fanfare, the world's media were gathered to Gafcon's more recent meeting in Abuja and told to expect the election of a primus inter pares from among the Gafcon Primates Council to act as an alternative figurehead to the Archbishop of Canterbury. This had been announced by the Primates Council in October of last year, alongside the resolution that a Primates Council will lead Gafcon. Then we were told in Abuja that there had been a 'late night movement of the spirit' and the whole plan was off. In fact, the plan changed rather dramatically.

Mouse will dig into the wider context of this in Part II to this post, but in the meantime, Mouse suggests you ignore commentary about the new leadership structure for Gafcon, take no notice of the rebranding of its top table and laugh off claims to be reclaiming the historic origins of the Anglican Communion. What actually happened in Abuja is much simpler. The Primates Council was disbanded and replaced by a group of true believers dominated by the ACNA and its off-shoots.

These true believers mostly come from outside the Anglican Communion and were installed to ensure the purity of the vision. Mouse understands the Primates from the Primates Council who have now been exiled from their Gafcon leadership positions were not present.

In this post, Mouse simply lists out who is now in charge of Gafcon and makes a few observations about the membership.

In place of the Primates Council, Gafcon is now led by the Global Anglican Council. Mouse has listed out the members of the new council below, all of whom we are told have equal voting rights.

Member	Member of the Anglican Communion
Laurent Mbanda, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, Chairman of Gafcon	Y
Miguel Uchoa, Archbishop of the Anglian Church in Brazil, Vice Chairman of Gafcon	N
Samuel Magula, Primate of the Church of Uganda	Y
Henry Ndukuba, Primate of the Church of Nigeria	Y
Siegfried Ngubane, Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa (REACH-SA)	N
Julian Dobbs, Acting Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)	N
Enrique Lago, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Chile	Y
Paul Donison, General Secretary (Rector and Dean of Christ Church Plano in the ACNA)	N
Jay Behan, Presiding Bishop of the Diocese of the Church of Confessing Anglicans Aotearoa / New Zealand	N
Glenn Davies, Bishop of the Diocese of the Southern Cross	N
Yassir Eric, Presiding Bishop of EKKIOS (a diocese in formation for Muslim-background believers)	N
Andrew Lines, Presiding Bishop, Anglican Network in Europe	N
Kanishka Raffel, Archbishop of the Diocese of Sydney	Y
Peter Akinola, Former Primate of the Church of Nigeria and Gafcon Guarantor Chairman	Y
Olayinka Fisher, Gafcon Guarantor and Trustee Member Church of Nigeria	Y
Emmanuel Kampouris, Gafcon Guarantor and Trustee Member of ACNA	N

Mouse observes a few things about this list:

Only seven of the sixteen members of the Council belong to churches within the Anglican Communion, and two of those are from Nigeria. It is perhaps also worth noting that the Anglican Church of Chile became a province in 2018, so is a newbie on the Anglican scene and has just 20,000 members.
Only four Primates from within the Anglican Communion are now members of Gafcon’s governing body. Of the former Primates Council, the Primates from Congo, Myanmar, Alexandria, Kenya and South Sudan have all been dropped. None were present at the Abuja meeting. These provinces have kept some degree of engagement with the Anglican Communion's official instruments, so have been effectively excluded until such time as they publicly sever ties. It has been reported that they have been invited to join should they agree to this condition.
The ACNA has four members of the Council, including its General Secretary and multi-millionaire businessman Emmanuel Kampouris. The eight Council members representing churches outside the Anglican Communion have a combined membership of around 250,000.
Two lay members have been appointed to the council. Both are, coincidentally, multi-millionaires.

What few people realise, however, is that Gafcon is legally speaking a UK Charity. This is only referenced on Gafcon's website on the contacts page, which directs you to Christ Church, Sheffield (an AMiE church) as the secretariat for the organisation and shows the UK Charity number. So if you want to email Gafcon, your email will be picked up by someone in Christ Church, Sheffield.

This also explains the reference to 'Trustee' for Olayinka Fisher and Emmanuel Kampouris's listing on the Global Anglican Council - they are trustees of the UK charity. The full list of trustees is quite fascinating.

When we look of the list of people who are legally responsible for the organisation, we find just four members of the Global Anglican Council. The trustees are, instead, stuffed full of ACNA members. Quite how Sarah Finch qualifies under the 'leadership commitments' of the new look Gafcon leadership when she sits on the General Synod of the Church of England is beyond Mouse, but perhaps she too will find herself removed from her position shortly.

Quite what the Charity Commission will make of this is another question. Overseas trustees for UK charities are permissible, but having just two UK trustees and a leadership structure which appears to be entirely subservient to the new Global Anglican Council, raises significant governance questions.

The full list of trustees, per the Charity Commission listing, is:

John Guernsey, Chair	Retired Bishop, ACNA
Carolyn Parlato	Retired US lawyer, member ACNA
Joel Reinhardt	Canadian Lawyer, member ACNA
Paul Donison	Gafcon General Secretary, ACNA
Laurent Mbanda	Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, Chairman of Gafcon
Charles Marnham	Retired Church of England priest
Emmanuel Kampouris	US businessman, Gafcon Guarantor and Trustee, Member ACNA
Laurence Scandrett	Australian consultant, Gafcon Australia, Director, member Sydney Diocese
Christopher Green	AMiE priest
Olayinka Fisher	Nigerian businessman, Gafcon Guarantor and Trustee, Member Church of Nigeria
Sarah Finch	PCC member, St Helen’s Bishopsgate, General Synod member

When you combine these two leadership lists, you can see just how strongly the ACNA is represented in its leadership, including with post the General Secretary, and how little involvement there is from within the actual Anglican Communion.

A prayer for Archbishop Sarah

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 06:30:00 +0000

In a troubled church, in a troubled communion, in a troubled world, Archbishop Sarah takes up her new ministry as Archbishop of Canterbury. Her appointment is a historic milestone and has been met with the widest possible range of reactions.

Mouse's offers up his prayers for Sarah and will be praying in particular for five things:

1. That Archbishop Sarah boldly proclaims the truth of Christ crucified without fear and without co-option. That the Christ she shares is the one about whom the scriptures testify, not one who has been re-edited and re-drawn to support political agendas.

2. That Archbishop Sarah finds new ways to articulate the gospel of Christ to generations who have not heard or understood it before. As more and more people in the UK grow up in households where there is no tradition of church-going, Bible reading or prayer, I pray Archbishop Sarah will lead us in finding new ways to communicate to new generations.

3. That disagreements in the Church be held openly and honestly and that Archbishop Sarah will not become a personal focal point for entrenched positions and long-running disputes, but that she will be a facilitator of conversations which allow both grace and truth to rise to the surface.

4. That Archbishop Sarah is strengthened to lead the Church in England to become a beacon of hope where people of all faiths and none are struck by the commitment of the Christian community in living a life which reflects Jesus's teaching to love our neighbours, serve the vulnerable and the needy, strive for peace and reconciliation as we exhibit the fruits of the Spirit.

5. That Archbishop Sarah is able to support the growth of the next generation of leaders in the Church of England, able to continue this work after her term as Archbishop has ended.

May God richly bless her, strengthen her with His Spirit and inspire her leadership of the Church. May God help us to see our role in supporting her and working with her in the service of Christ.

The Church of England attempts to define doctrine

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 24 Nov 2025 07:00:00 +0000

Far be it for Mouse to suggest he is ahead of the curve, but 15 months after Mouse observed the need to understand how the Church of England does its doctrine and published a comprehensive guide to the subject, the good old CofE has had a go itself.

The Bishops realised that doctrinal discussions within the torturous LLF process hit the rocks in part because people were talking past each other with different understandings of the nature of doctrine. What does it mean to 'change' doctrine? Is that even possible? What actually is doctrine? And can the church hold more than one doctrine at the same time?

Their response was a theological study, commissioned by the Faith and Order Commission, called The Nature of Doctrine and the Living God.

Mouse has a few observations.

1. The report does not deal with the role of the Faith and Order Commission itself

The role of the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) is as an advisory body to the Bishops, General Synod and the wider Church. It is made up of 16 members, around half of whom are bishops, and is appointed by the Archbishops. As a result of this, the group has no formal role in the Church of England. Its role is simply to consider topics as requested and publish reports. Previous incarnations of this group have included the Faith and Order Advisory Group and the Doctrine Commission. These groups are all a 20th century innovation, starting with the Doctrine Commission in 1922.

In not addressing the purpose and role of the group, its deliberations or positioning how it will be used by the church, it reads merely as an abstract discussion of a topic with no particular purpose or direction.

The Church of England regularly offers doctrinal sounding statements from the House of Bishops. Synod votes on matters with clear doctrinal implications. Liturgies are revised with consequential doctrinal implications. Yet the role of each of these is not discussed and the FAOC does not position its own work in the context with which the Church is expected to read it in relation to these other official seeming acts.

2. The report does not mention any previous attempts by the Church of England to answer the same questions

When Mouse first sat down to read the new report, he had assumed that it would start with a review of previous authoritative statements by the Church of England on the matter. His own article on the subject looked at the foundational documents of the Church of England (39 Articles), the Canons, then the major publications from the Church of England on the subject, starting with the first Doctrine Commission report of 1938, Doctrine in the Church of England. The 1938 report was commissioned with the remit:

To consider the nature and grounds of Christian doctrine with a view to demonstrating the extent of existing agreement within the Church of England and with a view to investigating how far it is possible to remove or diminish existing differences.

Sound familiar?

The 2025 report, does not mention the 1938 report. It does not mention the Doctrine Commission's 1968 report on the nature of the 39 articles and their role in defining the essential doctrine of the Church, entitled Subscription and Assent to the 39 Articles. There is no mention of the 1981 publication by the Doctrine Commission Believing in the Church. It does not consider the role of General Synod and the House of Bishops in the Church's theological considerations. Most astonishingly, there is not a single mention of either the 39 Articles or the Canons or an attempt to analyse how they establish the parameters of doctrine in the Church of England.

Perhaps the most significant contribution to the discussion on the nature of doctrine within the Church of England is found in the Doctrine Commission's 1981 document Believing in the Church in a chapter partly authored by an up-and-coming young theologian called Tom Wright entitled ‘Where is our doctrine to be found?’.

For Mouse, the failure to recognise or build on these past sources represents a gaping chasm in the report, which reads as if it is the first time anyone in the Church of England has ever had the idea of attempting to define the nature of its doctrine. This is particularly problematic as the specific remit of the report is, 'to provide clarity around how doctrine can develop or change within the Church of England.' [Mouse's emphasis]

Image created using Microsoft Designer AI

3. The report derives its authority from a random selection of theologians

In place of building on previous work in the Church, the report instead starts from first principles with a theological review. Included as authoritative sources for this work were:

Thomas Aquinas
John Calvin
Richard Hooker
John Henry Newman
Brooke Foss Westcott
Michael Ramsey
Kevin Vanhoozer
Anthony Thiselton
Alister McGrath
Sarah Coakley
Ellen Charry
Mike Higton

The works of these theologians is reviewed and the conclusion is reached that they are, essentially, of one accord. Sadly, this conclusion has been somewhat undermined by one of the theologians themselves. Writing at Via Media Mike Higton has rejected the report stating plainly, 'I for one, however, do not recognise my own work on doctrine in this formulation.' He writes that he had no idea his work was being included until someone pointed him to the report post-publication. He concludes, 'There are several divergences between the account I offer in the book and the ‘consensus’ that I am supposed to support.'

Yikes.

Perhaps a more fundamental question, however, is who decided that this group of theologians are the authoritative source for such a study? Mouse's hunch is that the idea was to gather the views from group from diverse theological perspectives and show that since they all essentially agree on this question it isn't really up for grabs. But in order to do this, they have to shoehorn complex views (such as Higton's) into a narrow conclusion and we are left to wonder if these really are some kind of representative sample of theologians and who else could have been included who might have offered a different perspective, not least the work of Tom Wright in the Doctrine Commission's own 1981 report on the very same subject.

4. The report does not answer the questions it was asked

The Nature of Doctrine and the Living God was not commissioned as an abstract theological reflection on doctrine, but specifically to address a series of questions arising from the LLF process. These include how doctrine develops or changes within the Church of England. The report offers no examples of doctrine that has or hasn't developed, or attempts the church has made to handle theological difference in the past. The question is simply not dealt with.

The commission from the bishops also included the questions:

Is it possible to hold multiple doctrines simultaneously, in order to respond in the most gracious and pastoral way possible, even when this is messy or incoherent? Is it possible for there to be a range of interpretations of one doctrine?

But the report doesn't even attempt to answer these questions. This could have been tackled by reference to the previous Doctrine Commission reports Mouse has mentioned and a historical review of the subject. The outcome is a report which offers a perspective, but does not conclude on the key matters and we are left to wonder our position if we simply disagree.

So where next?

Sadly Mouse is not optimistic that this report will help the Church move forward. The 1938 report of the Doctrine Commission took 16 year to produce. Once published it sunk without a trace and has barely seen the light of day since. In part, that is because the Doctrine Commission, like its present day successor, holds no formal position. Its reports are merely advice to the Bishops and the wider church which it can freely ignore at will. It did not help the church come together and find unity on the controversies of the day. Mouse fears the same fate for this one. The good ship LLF has been dashed on the rocks and there is no hope that this report will offer us a life boat.

The Quiet Revival under the microscope

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 18 Aug 2025 06:30:00 +0000

The Bible Society has published stunning data appearing to show a dramatic increase in church-going in England and Wales. But this Mouse has declared himself a Quiet Revival sceptic. He has now had the chance to review the data and thinks there are good grounds for this scepticism.

In the unlikely event that you have missed it, the ‘Quiet Revival’ is the title of a report from the Bible Society that has made the extraordinary claim that the Church in England and Wales has, despite everything we have previously believed, experienced dramatic growth in recent years. Two YouGov polls were conducted, one in 2018 and another in 2024, asking large samples of their actual experience of attending church. It showed a significant growth in attendance, led primarily by young people.

This news has received a rapturous welcome from those who have been predicting revival in the UK for as long as Mouse can remember, and has gained mainstream media attention from sources as diverse as The Sunday Express, The Times, BBC Radio 4's More or Less and The New Agents podcast. Many have honed in on the reported increase in 18-24 year olds attending church, arguing that the increasing uncertainty in the world today is causing young people to ask bigger questions about their future and their place in the world.

While Mouse would love to believe that people are flocking back to church, his instant reaction was that it simply didn't fit with the data we have from every other reliable source. Most importantly, the actual counting of bums in seats at all the major denominations. In fact, over 70% of the growth the Bible Society report claims to have spotted comes from two denominations which are self-reporting that they are shrinking.

At the time of Mouse's last blog, the underlying survey data tables which the Bible Society used as the basis for their report were not publicly available. Now that they are, Mouse has had a chance to have a look. Mouse also note an important article by the eminent David Voas, Professor of Social Science at UCL and a highly reputable authority on such matters. Professor Voas, like Mouse, has declared himself a Quiet Revival Sceptic.

So what is wrong with the Bible Society's data?

On one level, there is nothing wrong with it. Two surveys were conducted by the respected polling organisation YouGov and the results have been summarised accurately, albeit with a focus on the numbers which tell the most positive story. The wider picture the data reveals is one where the total number of people who call themselves Christian is more or less the same, but with a notably higher level of claimed church attendance from within that group.

Mouse's previous comment pointed out the rather obvious point that this data doesn't match what the churches themselves have reported or data from other well-known authoritative surveys. David Voas makes the same observation, but also points out that the YouGov data also differs from survey data produced by the highly respected polling organisation ... errr ... YouGov. As Professor Voas summarises:

The findings are also inconsistent with other data from YouGov, the polling firm that collected the data for the Bible Society. A decade ago, the British Election Study (BES) commissioned YouGov to create an online panel. This panel, which includes more people than the Bible Society surveys, was asked about religious affiliation and church attendance in 2015, 2022 and 2024.

According to YouGov’s data for the BES internet panel, the share of Christian churchgoers in England and Wales declined from 8.0% to 6.6% between 2015 and 2024, whereas YouGov’s surveys for the Bible Society apparently show an increase from 8% to 12% between 2018 and 2024.

That's right, YouGov had already created a panel measuring church attendance and has now created another survey to contradict their own earlier data. The BES panel uses a more rigorous methodology too, keeping contact with the same panel members over time to ensure comparability in the different data sets. It is a long-term study project, which has been running since 1964 with a panel of 30,000 people currently in the survey. The BES data matches other sources, including the British Social Attitudes Survey, widely seen as the most authoritative source of data on these issues.

So why does the Bible Society study show something different?

Mouse would point to three key points:

1. Different questions were asked

Reporting suggested that the same questions were asked in the two surveys, which is technically true in the sense that the questions driving these results were worded in the same way. But in one of the surveys a number of other questions were asked before getting to the crucial ones on church attendance.

In the 2024 survey, before asking how often the individuals attended church in the last month, an additional series of questions was asked. Participants were asked whether they think ‘It’s important to me to try to make a difference in the world’ and whether they agree with statement like ‘My life feels meaningful right now’. In total eight additional questions were asked of this nature.

There is a very well known psychological phenomenon called priming, whereby you can incluence thoughts and behaviours through the use of an earlier stimulus or prompt. One example is that you can get a different answer to the same question depending on whether that person has been primed to think in a particular way beforehand. In one famous study, people were asked to guess the date the Mongul ruler Genghis Khan died (1227). Half the group were asked to write down the last three digits of their phone number before making their guess and half were not. The group who were primed to think of an unrelated three digit number were more likely to guess a date before the turn of the first millennium - in other words they were primed to guess a three digit number.

So Mouse is left to speculate whether being asked if you feel connected to your community and have a meaningful life immediately before being asked if you attended church recently has a similar priming effect. In some respects, it would be a surprise if it did not.

2. The surveys were conducted at slightly different times of year

The 2018 survey fieldwork was done between 11 October and 13 November, while the 2024 survey was just a couple of weeks later from 4 November to 2 December.

Ordinarily a two week difference would not be considered significant, but looking at the dates makes Mouse speculate whether it had an impact in this case. It certainly isn't speculation that in December you are running into a lot more Christmas trees and hearing a lot more of Wizzard wishing it could be Christmas every day than you are in October. Halloween took place during the 2018 fieldwork, but had already passed by before the 2024 fieldwork period and the Christmas build up was in full swing. It is possible this timing difference had an effect.

3. Different samples were used

The 2018 survey had just over 19,000 participants while the 2024 survey had just over 13,000 participants. Presumably, since they asked more questions in the second survey they saved some money by cutting back on the sample size.

That begs the question how the demographics of the two different sized samples were balanced to ensure comparability. No doubt YouGov will have made every effort to strike a demographic balance in these two samples, but that is no easy task. There is no gold standard for ensuring a group of people are equally likely to go to church or not, so there is a possibility the samples had an effect. The sample picked people and weighted the sample to achieve an equal mix of age, gender and ethnic diversity. That would help, but if there were other differences in the demographics, such as a mix of social classes or a bias between urban and rural, these would have a significant impact on the likelihood of church attendance but would be very invisible in the YouGov methodology.

In Professor Voas's article he explains the problems with the sampling methodology YouGov used for the Bible Society study. While the ideal methodology is to randomly select individuals to take part, YouGov's method is to recruit a self-selecting group to take surveys with the offer of financial compensation. From this group, basic demographic characteristics are equalised to try to make sample groups more representative of the general population, but the selection method means that they are unlikely to be genuinely representative in all aspects. Professor Voas explains:

Gold standard social surveys are based on random (probability) samples of the population: everyone has a chance to be included. The British Social Attitudes survey is one such example – and found that churchgoing fell by nearly a quarter from 2018-23.
By contrast, people opt in to YouGov’s survey panel and are rewarded after completing a certain number of surveys. The risk of low-quality or even bogus responses is considerable.

Passing the sniff test

There are some anomalies in the Bible Society data which indicate a problem with the samples which should make us stop and think. Take the number of people reporting that they go to church 'Daily / Almost Daily'. In 2018 the result for 18-24 year olds was 0%, as we would expect, but it jumped to 2% in 2024. The equivalent figure claiming attendance 'a few times per week' also jumped from 1% to 7%. At face value, an incredible increase. That single data point has contributed enormously to the narrative that it is the young who are behind a jump in attendance, almost itself explaining the total jump in monthly attendance reported. But if we are honest it is simply not credible to believe by extrapolation from the 28 people who ticked the 'daily / almost daily' box (that is 2% of the 1,400 sample in that group) and the 98 people who ticked the 'a few times a week' box that there are now almost half a million 18-24 year-olds attending church almost every single day. If we are to believe these numbers, the average demographic in church for daily prayers through the week would have more 18-24 year-olds than any other age group. Is it a coincidence that these answers were the top two in the list of answers? It seems to Mouse a more credible explanation that the people being paid to fill in the survey just ticked a box high up the list without reading it properly or caring much what they were ticking.

On Radio 4's More or Less programme, 'The Undercover Economist' Tim Harford posited several possibilities to explain the anomalous data. The 2018 survey could have been an ‘outlier’ poll with attendance coming out too low. The 2024 poll could have been an ‘outlier’ poll in the other direction. It is possible that a sudden upswing genuinely has happened late in 2024 after the denominational counts had taken place, and other data is yet to catch up with the sudden and dramatic turnaround. The conclusion was that more data is required.

But Mouse wonders what the response to these two surveys would have been if they had shown an unexpectedly large decline in church attendance. Presumably, Church commentators would have analysed the methodology, compared the results with other authoritative sources and concluded that it was a rogue poll. What a shame similar rigour has not been applied in this case.

As for Mouse, sadly he feels that the most likely explanation for the unexpected report of rising church attendance is that there is a bit of bias in the surveys for the reasons outlined above, and a few self-selecting survey responders didn't bother to answer very honestly.

Mouse clings on to some hope that this instinct is wrong and there genuinely has been a sudden and unexpected cultural shift, but none of the explanations he has yet heard have convinced him, and the evidence to the contrary is strong.

If you'd like to read the data yourself, the YouGov data tables are available here and here. You can also read the Bible Society's ~~response to criticisms of their survey~~ FAQ's here.

Confessions of a Quiet Revival Sceptic

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 29 May 2025 06:00:00 +0000

Mouse recently confessed to someone that he was sceptical that a quiet revival was underway in the UK, and the response he got was a frustrated, "Don’t you believe in Jesus?"

So here I am making my confession. I’m The Church Mouse and I’m a ‘quiet revival sceptic’. But I still have hope.

In case you have missed it, the ‘quiet revival’ is the title of a report from the Bible Society that has made the stunning claim that the Church in England and Wales has, despite everything we have previously believed, experienced dramatic growth in recent years.

The most extraordinary claim is that, in the past six years (i.e., since just before the pandemic), the Church in England and Wales, across all denominations, has grown by more than half, from a total of 3.7 million regular worshippers to 5.8 million. The report says that it is largely the young who are driving this, in contradiction to our previous assumption that every generation is less religious than their parents.

The evidence for these claims comes from a large survey undertaken by a highly respected polling organisation, YouGov, that whether they had attended a church in the past month, among other questions. The same question set and methodology six years previously reveals a 56% increase in attendance.

And none of us noticed.

Reaction has largely been one of joy, mixed with anecdotes supporting the conclusions and speculation as to the reasons.

‘I had noticed more people attending recently, so it has the ring of truth about it!’

‘Young men are increasingly in search of purpose.’

‘Gen Z are much more spiritually open than previous generations.’

This is the sort of thing that church social media is full of.

Numerous articles have been written to explain this growth. We have been treated to explanations of how Gen Z is simply a different sort of human being from Gen Y or us oldies of previous vintages. Apparently, they are more open to spirituality and not burdened by old assumptions around faith. We are told that they don’t have the same sense of hope that previous generations had, so they are searching for new sources of meaning and purpose, and it is the young who are fuelling the growth.

So let Mouse unpack what this survey is actually saying and then form a view, to the extent that we can from the available evidence.

Firstly, the survey is not a measure of the number of people who have attended church regularly. It is a measure of the number who said that they have attended church regularly. Those are not the same things, and we must test whether there is a gap between actual attendance and claimed attendance before going any further.

Pollsters have long experienced the phenomenon of inaccurate responses in political polling. Perhaps most famously, the 1992 general election was widely predicted to be a Labour win. When the Conservatives secured a 21-seat majority, the pollsters looked at their numbers to work out what went wrong. They had accurately reported how people told them they would vote, and their samples were representative. But they coined the term ‘Shy Tories’ to explain the phenomenon. Some felt a sense of social embarrassment in telling someone they intended to vote Tory, so they either said ‘don’t know’ or declined to respond. They have since learned to make adjustments for this type of thing.

When it comes to polling on church attendance, no such methodological rigour exists. The polling firms can only report what they are told by members of the public and aim for samples that are large and as demographically representative as possible. So the minimum this survey can tell us is that more people are claiming to go to church than was the case six years ago.

This Mouse would be absolutely overjoyed if this turns out to be the reality, but let me set out a few (evidence-based) reasons why he finds it hard to believe.

Some of the churches where the Bible Society reported significant growth actually count the number of people who walk through their doors, and the numbers don’t match.

The most robust data set by a UK denomination is from the Church of England. Each church counts the number of worshippers during the same period each year, and the numbers are compiled to create a robust, consistent data set. The data shows that over the past six years, the Church has shrunk by between 10-20%, depending on how you count it.

Some commentators have responded that the Church of England is the exception, not the rule. Mired in conflict over sexuality and having high-profile sexual abuse cases in recent years, we should simply ignore the Church of England. The growth is elsewhere, we are told.

The Head of Research for the Bible Society, Dr Rhiannon McAleer, has made this argument.

“Some churches, like the Church of England and Methodists are very good at counting attendance within their churches and these data sets clearly show decline. This is picked up in the media and extrapolated to the wider picture, when it is not necessarily a fair indication of what’s going on in many denominations and churches who don’t collect attendance statistics.”

But that is not what the Bible Society report says. We can see in the data exactly what they are reporting for the Church of England. They are reporting significant growth.

According to their data, 41% of the English and Welsh Church attendance in 2018 was in Anglican settings. Based on a total regular attendance of 3.7m people, we can calculate the Anglican attendance at around 1.5m. By 2024, Anglicans had reduced as a proportion to 34% but of a much larger reported attendance of 5.8m people, so we should be seeing an increase in attendance of around 500,000 to around 2m. In other words, the report claims that the Church of England has grown by a third since 2018.

The Church of England has a range of measures of attendance, but even its most favourable measure of the ‘worshipping community’ is 8% smaller in 2024 than it was in 2018. By stricter measures, such as the average Sunday attendance, the CofE is more like 20% down, despite small increases in numbers since the pandemic lows.

Mouse notes that the Bible Society report includes Wales, however, the Anglican Church in Wales reported attendance of just 26,000 in 2018, so it is safe to assume the vast bulk of these numbers are from the Church of England.

The same methodology can be applied to the data for the Catholic Church, the next largest denomination. The report said that it has grown from 23% of attendees in 2018 to 31% in 2024, meaning it would have grown from around 850,000 regular attendees in 2018 to 1.8 million in 2024, spectacular growth of almost a million regular worshippers.

The Catholic Church in England and Wales reported regular mass attendance down around 20% from pre-pandemic levels, to 555,000 in 2023 from 702,000 in 2019.

Between them, these two denominations have reportedly grown their regular attendance by almost 1.5m people, out of the total reported growth of 2.1m, or over 70% of the total growth. But Church attendance data simply does not back that up.

If we are to take seriously the claims from the Bible Society / YouGov report, someone must come up with a plausible explanation for how it shows growth in attendance of 1.5 million people in denominations whose own statistics show decline.

It is certainly possible that there has been growth in other denominations, but when we have good reason to believe that over 70% of the growth claimed by this report is non-existent, it is hard to believe that the overall picture is anything like the headlines.

Mouse is a little frustrated that the actual questionnaire and data tables from YouGov are not available. That is not to suggest anything is being deliberately hidden, but for anyone looking to understand the data better, this would be invaluable. There may be a better way to understand the numbers, but Mouse cannot work out what that is. There may be more nuggets to be mined from the data tables if they are available, but for now, Mouse has to draw stumps at this point.

So where does this leave us?

Mouse’s take is that it is far from clear that more people are attending church than was the case in 2018, based on actual data from the two largest denominations in Britain. More solidly, we have pretty firm grounds for believing that nothing like the 56% increase is happening in reality, even if there is some growth in some places.

It is perhaps most interesting that people are claiming they attend church more frequently, even if they aren’t actually doing so in practice. For some time there was a bit of a social stigma in certain circles about religiosity. The New Atheist movement had created a hostile environment by arguing that religious faith was the preserve of the ignorant and needy. Many felt the need to move their faith into the private sphere in the face of this. That has largely died away. Perhaps the ‘Shy Christians’ are prepared to say what they really think more now.

But Mouse would conclude by zooming out a little on the macro trends. Church attendance and religious affiliation in Britain has been on the slide since before the Second World War. This has been well evidenced in church attendance data and robust surveys, such as the British Social Attitudes Survey and the Census. Perhaps it will turn around. Perhaps it has already started to do so, but Mouse urges that we not underestimate the depth and profundity of the social forces that have been driving that decline for the past century. Patterns of behaviour learned and passed on from one generation to the next have changed. New habits, behaviours, attitudes and beliefs have replaced core assumptions of previous generations. Turning this round will not be driven by a TikTok meme or a passing fad.

Facing into these uncomfortable truths is not a lack of faith or hope, but simply a recognition of the reality in which we live. In fact, it is only by facing this truth that we can have hope that we will turn it around. This Mouse still has hope, but it remains a hope in things we have not seen.

Are Gen Z kids really more spiritual than their parents?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:30:00 +0000

Mouse was intrigued by newspaper reports of a new survey claiming to have found that Gen Z are the most spiritual generation and the least committed to atheism. The claims looked compelling but need a deeper look.

Just in case you've been able to miss the deluge of excited Christians sharing the news, Mouse is referring to an opinion poll survey of 10,000 people in the UK which has found that the generations appear to be becoming more spiritual. The survey was first reported in The Times, which headlined that Gen Z were half as likely to consider themselves atheist as their parents.

The survey has been pounced on by some Christians, eager to demonstrate that the current generation of young people are open to conversations about faith and suggesting that this might be the prelude to a revival in the UK.

Well. Perhaps.

The first alarm bell for Mouse was that the survey, with an impressively large sample size, is not actually available for us to review. We don't know the exact questions asked and we are not able to see the data tables behind the headlines. We don't know how the data was collected or the demographic breakdown of the sample. Mouse is always suspicious of a survey when he can't see the exact wording of the question asked or the actual data.

The second alarm bell is that the survey was conducted for the purposes of publicising a book - The Devil's Gospels, by Christopher Gasson. So what we're evaluating here is a survey where we can't see the questions or answers, which was constructed to generate publicity.

Nevertheless, let's take a look at the information that is available from this survey with an open mind. Gasson has written up his key conclusions from the survey in a stand alone report. In the introduction, Gasson writes:

I expected the data to confirm what has been assumed for a long time: Britain is steadily becoming a more atheist country. The results are the reverse of what I was expecting.

Mouse would suggest that Gasson's expectations were somewhat out of line with most of the recent evidence, if that was the case. There has been no evidence of increased atheism for a long time. That said, the evidence has strongly indicated a growth in 'nones' - those affiliating with no religion.

However, Gasson's data does appear to have a counterintuitive conclusion. It appears to show that younger generations consider themselves more spiritual and more religious than older generations. This leads to the paradoxical conclusion that despite the nation becoming less committed to religion steadily over time, younger generations are becoming more committed to religion than older generations.

Now, Mouse will suspend his suspicions that some of this may be caused by the exact nature of the questions asked and take the finding at face value. How can this be true?

In 2022 a survey asked the UK population about belief in God, heaven and hell and came to another paradoxical conclusion - that younger generations were both less religious than older generations, but also more likely to believe in heaven and hell.

It was a puzzle that the Policy Institute looked into in a fascinating article by David Young, who asked:

Is this due to a rise in people with unorthodox combinations of beliefs, shunning organised religion but believing in eternal damnation? That may be an intuitive solution – but it’s not the answer.

Young's solution to the puzzle was a simple analysis of demographics and the impact of immigration. In essence, the younger the generation the increasing proportion of the population is made up of first or second generation immigrants, who come from relatively more religious backgrounds than the UK population into which they have settled. As Young explains:

later generations do include a higher proportion of people from immigrant backgrounds (a person was classified as having an immigrant background if either they described themselves as an immigrant or described both their parents as an immigrant), though this has actually levelled off in Gen Z, which is probably only because the Gen Z cohort is still too young, with birth years between 1997 and 2012, for many Gen Z adults to have immigrated to the UK from abroad, compared to preceding generations.

In particular, Young showed how the increased British Muslim population amongst younger generations moved the needle on belief in Heaven and Hell. While the headline showed that Gen Z were more likely to believe in Hell than any other generation, this is not true when Muslim respondents were excluded.

So what has Christopher Gasson discovered in his survey?

The increased religiosity and 'spirituality' of Gen Z are most likely not a fundamental change in values of younger people, but more likely simply reflect that a greater proportion of this generation come from more religious immigrant families.

Many Christians assumed that the increase in 'spirituality' could be a stepping stone towards commitment to faith. But it is more likely that it is, in fact, a stepping stone in the other direction. Children of immigrant parents who come from a religious background are less likely to follow the faith when they are growing up (and trying to fit in with their mates) in a society which is largely faithless.

It is possible that this demographic phenomenon explains the whole of the effect that Gasson has found. Or perhaps there is an element that young people are more open-minded than older people. After all, Gen Z are aged between 11 and 26 - the ages when teenagers and young adults are discovering themselves and finding their own way in the world. This may explain why the report claims that younger generations are much more likely to have taken a greater interest in religion and spirituality in recent years.

Mouse is not without hope that there will be a change in the direction of travel with regard to faith in the UK. But he is not yet convinced that he is seeing it happen. The best evidence appears to simply show that the reason for changing beliefs in the generations is due to demographic changes. As David Young concluded, "The pattern we see in Gen Z emerges not because of changes in the combinations of beliefs held by Britons, but changes in the composition of who Britons are."

Latest CofE statistics released

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 13 Jan 2025 07:30:00 +0000

It seems we are Schrodinger’s Church - both growing and shrinking at the same time - according to the latest statistical release from the Church of England. Attendance in 2023 was higher than 2022, but still significantly below pre-pandemic levels so we have yet to show we have bucked the overall long-term trend of decline.

The headlines from Statistics for Mission 2023 are that the post-COVID bounce-back continued with an increase in attendance of between 2.5% and 5%, depending on which measure you use. But the bad news is that those numbers still put us well below the pre-pandemic attendance level.

The key numbers are average all-age attendance during October, which increasing by 4.6% between 2022 and 2023, but that level is still 20% lower than 2019. That pattern is broadly consistent across most measures.

Easter and Christmas attendances increased by more in 2023 (8.6% and 20% respectively) but Mouse observes that these tend to fluctuate more depending on the weather and the day of the week that these festivals fall, and overall they are still well down on pre-pandemic levels by 20% and 16% respectively.

Mouse would like to offer a few observations.

It is commendable that the Church of England publishes such fulsome statistics and the methodology used is probably the most reliable of all the options. It has been consistent for many years to allow comparisons to be drawn and trends identified. The church asks each parish to physically count the number of people who come through the doors for each service during October and then adds them all up. This has the advantage that it is, in theory at least, not a subjective measure. It does not rely on estimations or surveys which could be subject to bias depending on who does or does not fill them out. To that extent, we treat the numbers as reliable.

However, that does not mean that we should not do further interpretative work on the outcomes.

It has been obvious for some time that one of the issues with this methodology is that counting the number of people in attendance does not give a clear indication of the size of the membership of a church. The count would be the same for a Church with 50 members who were all in attendance each week as a church with 100 members but where attendance is 50%. Electoral rolls are even less reliable as they are only fully refreshed every four years and even then depend on the extent to which church administrators are motivated to enrol parishioners.

This feature of the data means that it is difficult to interpret changes. Do falls represent the same number of church members attending less frequently or fewer members attending at the same rate as previously. Or both. Conversely, do we interpret the recent rise in attendance as the conversion of new members attending church for the very first time, or simply those who had stayed at home for a while coming back, or just those already attending coming to church more frequently.

For this reason, the Church of England stats wizards came up with a new measure - the ‘worshipping community’. This attempts to measure those who attend worship once per month or more, whether physically or online, so is intended to give a more rounded picture of membership. This number shows a 2.5% increase from 2022 to 2023, but only a 10% reduction from the 2019 level.

This is perhaps a little more encouraging, but given the more survey-based nature of this number, it is subject to more bias. Mouse likes the concept, but it lacks the rigour to be able to rely on it too heavily. And even if we take it at face value, it still points to a shrinking church, just one which is shrinking more slowly than the headline figures.

It is also important to note that these numbers are already pretty dated by the time they are published. The latest release relates to October 2023 attendance. To that extent they are what statisticians would call a lagging indicator, helpful mostly to understand the past rather than predict the future. However, within these numbers some of the statistics could be considered leading indicators - ones which point to a future direction.

Marriages and baptisms are not true leading indicators, but have shown that they move more quickly than the headline attendance numbers, so may be a proxy for leading indicators.

Sadly the data here is not encouraging. As Mouse has previously noted, marriage rates within the Church of England have been plunging and, if you exclude some blips around the pandemic and avoid over-interpreting the post-Covid bounce-back, remain dreadfully low. Similarly, baptism rates are plunging, with the latest data showing the CofE undertaking 24% fewer baptisms than as recent as 2019.

The thing that determines whether a church will grow or shrink is the r number - the rate at which church members replicate themselves. Or more simply whether more people are joining the church through birth and conversion, or whether more a leaving it by death or by leaving the faith.

The Church of England has had a negative r rate for quite some time. This is in large part due to demographic change. According to the ONS, there were 598,000 deaths in England and Wales in 2023 and 598,400 births. However, there was population grown of 610,000 due to net immigration of 622,000. The balancing figure is migration from England and Wales to Scotland. Population growth was strongest in cities and urban areas, also reflected in the CofE data.

Recent immigrant communities are far less likely to join the Church of England than those born in England. At the time of the last census, the largest immigrant communities in the UK were from India, Poland, Pakistan, Romania, Ireland, Nigeria, Italy, Germany and Bangladesh. None have a significant Anglican church, from which migrants might expect to naturally move into the Church of England on arrival, with the exception of Ireland, which has around 125,000 members in the Republic - small enough not to invalidate the broad line of argument here.

Without any conversions or people losing the faith, the church will naturally shrink unless church members have babies at the same rate as the death rate and every single baby born to parents who attend the church will subsequently grow up in the faith. Neither of these propositions are realistic.

Evidence from recent studies in church growth within the Church of England show that this fundamental in the r rate has not been overcome, even by the most successful evangelical church planting initiatives. While the evidence base on church planting in the Anglican context is very limited, what does exist seems to show that the vast majority of attendees in new church initiatives are those who either come from another church or who have some degree of churchgoing in their past. In other words, these initiatives are reaching people from within a population which is itself shrinking. The best this can do, therefore, is slow the decline.

According to a 2021 report from the Strategic Development Unit, the data on Resource Churches who had been given funding to support church growth in the Church of England showed that 38% of attendees moved from other churches and 24% had recently moved to the area. A further 14% were ‘de-churched’ (i.e. used to go to church but gave it up) and just 9% had never been to church. The remaining 15% were either part of the plant team, the ‘inherited’ church community or attend in addition to another church.

Even this data is potentially subject to challenge as it was collected by survey from the churches themselves, who may have an inherent optimism bias about the success of their evangelism efforts. Mouse also notes that all the Resource churches identified were in cities, where population growth was strongest and were the result of huge efforts by the planting churches and massive financial investment.

We have yet to find a model which can reach significant numbers of people who have never been to church or come from non-Christian communities, which is essential to increase the r rate of the Church.

So what have we learned from the most recent statistical release? Mouse would encourage a combination of optimism and realism. It is positive that the church appears to have been growing. We must be realistic that the Church of England may not be the church of choice for everyone and we are not part of a growing community. We must continue with church growth efforts that are working, even if they are merely slowing the decline. We must re-double efforts to revitalise those church communities which have been neglected by the most recent Renewal and Reform plans.

The Save The Parish initiative has given voice to some of those who feel neglected by Renewal and Reform programme. The argument goes that the bulk of the Church of England’s parishes have been neglected and starved of resources while millions is ploughed into shiny new initiatives, which are yielding meagre results.

Mouse has to admit that the maths is difficult to comprehend. With 16,000 churches at its disposal, growing the church by just one weekly attender at each church would be an increase of 2% - a remarkable and dramatic turn-around in the long term decline of the Church. That isn’t to say that shiny new things should be stopped - there are many great examples of revitalised churches growing strongly. But Mouse contends that these efforts have not overcome the demographics, so a new plan to support the whole of the church is needed.

The last dose of realism Mouse would add is that the trend of decline is a very long one. It has hardly budged regardless of who has been Archbishop, what national evangelism strategies we have employed, which issues are causing the most argument in the Church at the moment. This points to something more fundamental in our society and demographics which will take enormous efforts to overcome. It has happened in the past, but changes to trends this deep do not happen very often.

Receiving updates from The Church Mouse blog

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 20:23:00 +0000

Thank you for subscribing to updates via email. Mouse has migrated to a new system to distribute updates, so if you subscribed on the old 'FollowIt' system you might notice that things look slightly different now. You still have the option to opt out at any time (booo!) and Mouse crosses his heart and promises not to use your email address for anything whatsoever other than sending you updates via email.

Thanks again!

Mouse

Anglican Communion structural reform proposed

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:30:00 +0000

A minor revolution may be taking place in the history of the Anglican Communion. Firstly a little historical context is helpful to understand what is being proposed.

The Anglican Communion came into fruition rather organically in the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1787 Charles Inglis, Bishop of Nova Scotia was appointed with Jurisdiction over all of British North America. He was the first of what would become a series of 'Colonial Bishops' appointed by the King within the Church of England. Inglis had sailed to the US on behalf of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, which still exists today in the for of USPG.

Other Colonial Bishops were appointed and a slow process of development through the 19th century led to increasing independence of national Churches under 'Metropolitan Bishops'. In 1841 the Colonial Bishoprics Council was established, which formalised more Dioceses and Metropolitan Bishops and in 1867 the first Lambeth Conference took place at the invitation of Archbishop Longley.

This marked the start of a more fomalised structure, whereby Provinces established effective autonomy from England, which became endorsed under the structures established and agreed globally. It is those structures that we have inherited today.

The strange thing about the Anglican Communion, however, is that in ceding virtually all central authority to its Provinces there remains very little in the institution or structures that join the member provinces together. They are instead bound together by history and by a willingness to call themselves members of a Communion and to meet and work together.

Recently, it is the second of these that has come under significant strain. Member provinces have disagreed on issues of sexuality with such ferocity that some have rejected communion fellowship with other members. Conservative provinces have boycotted attendance at the Lambeth Conference where bishops who have endorsed same-sex marriage and 'liberal' position on sexuality are invited. They have also recognised the break-away Anglican Church of North America and established various forms of collaboration outside the traditional structures of the Anglican Communion. Following the Church of England's more modest proposals under Living in Love and Faith, some have rejected the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury entirely.

Despite this, the actual authority if the Archbishop of Canterbury is very limited. Justin Welby has repeatedly used the phrase 'I'm not a pope' to try to be clear that he is not in a position of direct authority over any of the global provinces of the Anglican Communion except his own.

He holds a traditional position of authority within the communion as a focus for unity, with power only to invite bishops to the Lambeth Conference and to act as President of the Anglican Consultative Council, a body which itself has very limited powers to work collaboratively and advise members church on global affairs.

Nevertheless, if even the Lambeth Conference cannot meet in full and the ACC cannot function effectively due to boycotts, then change must come.

With that context, the Anglican Consultative Council asked the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO), one of its permanent committees, to look at reform. The IASCUFO is made up of 18 members, around two thirds of whom are from the Global South. At the last ACC meeting, the IASCUFO put a report forward proposing further work be done and in response the ACC:

1. Welcomes the proposal from the Inter-Anglican Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) to explore theological questions regarding structure and decision-making to help address our differences in the Anglican Communion;

2. Affirms the importance of seeking to walk together to the highest degree possible, and learning from our ecumenical conversations how to accommodate differentiation patiently and respectfully;

3. Asks the IASCUFO for any proposals that may impact the ACC constitution to be brought for full discussion to the ACC-19 [its next meeting in 2026]; and

4. Asks IASCUFO to proceed with this work and report its progress to the Instruments of Communion

Mouse observes that there are some limits to this brief, in that it comes from the ACC and cannot impact on wider issues beyond the remit of the ACC. As such, some topics such as the role of the Lambeth Conference and the Primates Meetings, two key instruments of communion, are out of scope.

It is also explicit that the remit and purpose of this work is to find ways of resolving our current differences. While some of the commentary talks about post-colonial power structures, the brief was simply to find ways to manage our current differences, so that talk appears to Mouse to be somewhat beside the point.

Bishops at the Lambeth Conference

On 18 December, the IASCUFO published a lenghty report, under the stewardship of our very own Graham Tomlin. It proposes two changes which the report itself accepts are models, but with the hope for more significant impact.

1. To change the description of the Anglican Communion from one which describes provinces as being 'in communion' with Canterbury to merely having a 'historical connection' with Canterbury.

2. To remove the Archbishop of Canterbury from being permanent president of the ACC and introduce a rotating Chair.

The hope is that it will enable the Communion to move on from a period of intense division to one in which members can genuinely 'walk together' while accepting that differences exist. The report is honest about the depth of division, suggesting it may even be an existential threat to the Communion.

The proposals recognises both that member provinces are genuinely autonomous in their decision-making but also want to remain in some way part of a global communion and in downgrading the role of Archbishop of Canterbury also accepts that England is no longer the center of the Anglican world.

If successful, it would mark an extraordinary and unexpected success in Justin Welby's attempts at reconciliation within the Anglican Communion, finally taking practical steps in implementing the declared intention of 'walking together' in some form.

Mouse has a few questions, however.

The obvious question is whether these minor technical changes will be sufficient to placate militarised conservatives who have previously insisted that 'Godly discipline' be exercised over churches which have introduced policies on human sexuality with which they disagree. Mouse is sceptical on that front.

The description of the Anglican Communion to be amended originates only from the 1930 Lambeth Conference. the IASCUFO paper argues that it is de facto the primary definition as it is the one which is most commonly referred to, but it is not something which sits in a formal constitution or legally binding document, so this move is symbolic at best. It may be something which allows those in a form of impaired communion to stay within the Anglican Communion in good conscience, but it doesn't change much in practice.

Secondly, it reduces the concept of Anglicanism to little more than an acceptance of the name. If provinces are no longer willing to say they are actually in communion with each other, then in what way are they actually part of a communion? Mouse could understand a proposal which changed the perspective from being in communion with Canterbury to being in Communion with one another, but simply one which has a historical connection to Canterbury is watered down to homeopathic levels.

Rowan Williams' solution to this connundrum was to attempt to introduce a 'Covenant'. The 1988 Lambeth Conference called for a "common declaration" that would assist a coherent doctrinal identity for the Communion, but no such declaration was produced. In 2004 the Windsor report called for a declaration from provinces to 'bind themselves' to each other by a covenant and a paper was produced by the ACC in 2006 titled Towards an Anglican Covenant discussing a way forward. Rowan Williams ran with the idea as Archbishop, largely in response to the troubles the Communion was finding itself in. But his efforts failed to convince. The final nail in the coffin was a rejection by a majority of the dioceses in the Church of England in 2012, which meant the proposal could not be taken forward in the Church of England. It came shortly before the end of Williams’s retirement and the concept was not taken forward by his successor.

Mouse's final observation is that the process for appointing a new Archbishop of Canterbury is underway and under reforms brought about by the Church of England, this includes greater representation from the Anglican Communion in recognition of Canterbury's global role. In July 2022 the rules were changed to include five representatives from the Anglican Communion on the 17 member committee who decides on the new Archbishop and representation from the Diocese of Canterbury was cut from six to three. It is rather unfortunate timing that these are being put into action at the same time as the proposals to significantly downgrade the Archbishop's global role. Had these proposals come sooner it is unlikely the Church of England would have changed the rules on appointing the new Archbishop.

Image Source

Most read posts of 2024

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 10:57:00 +0000

It has been great to be back blogging after a long break and Mouse has been delighted by the response it has received. He has enjoyed digging up some interesting research and generating AI images to illustrate it.

By way of a kick off to the new year, here are the top five most read blog posts of 2024 from The Church Mouse blog.

1. What is the Church of England's doctrine?
Mouse takes a look at what the Church of England actually means by 'doctrine' and what it might contain, tracing its origins back to the 39 Articles and its development since then.

2. A church on its knees: the Welby legacy

Mouse take a long view of Justin Welby's time as Archbishop of Canterbury and attempts an honest assessment of his time in office.

3. How should we pick our bishops?

In light of repeat failures of the CNC to appoint new bishops when needed, Mouse took a look at the process in its historical context and considers whether it is time for an update. The post concluded by saying that it needed to be sorted out in time for Justin's retirement, although it has turned out to be a rather more pressing issue.

4. Why do priests in the Church of England wear robes?

Following an interesting question on social media, Mouse took a look at the (very long) history of clerical dress and considers the theological and missiological implications.

5. Is the Church of England getting out of the marriage business?

Mouse took a look at the data on Church marriages, which sadly is not pretty reading, and considers the implications of no longer marrying very many people.

Following the star - a Christmas story for a troubled church

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:47:00 +0000

In 44BC Rome was reeling from the assassination of Julius Caesar. He had re-shaped the politics of Rome and made himself an emperor in all but name, but enemies had conspired and he was murdered on the Ides of March.

Caesar was popular with the people and fear of reprisals from the mob meant that the aftermath was tense and carefully managed. Mark Antony brokered a deal with the conspirators in the Senate to avoid punishment for them, but Julius Caesar would be honored and his appointments and structures maintained. Within two years of his murder, Caesar was recognised by the Senate as a god.

After a legendary power struggle, Caesar's great-nephew and adopted son Octavian emerged as the sole ruler of Rome in 27BC and adopted the name Augustus, ruling as Emperor. His keen propaganda skills made extensive use of his relationship with Caesar, promoting the cult of Caesar as a way of boosting his own status. Ever since Caesar's elevation to divine status in 42BC, Augustus had styled himself Divi Fillius - Son of the God. He would later claim that he was conceived by his mother Atian when she was asleep in the Temple of Apollo and was visited by the god in the form of a snake, so some considered Augustus the son of a god twice over.

One of the most famous events in the aftermath of Julius Caesar's death took place a few weeks later. A bright star appeared in the sky, visible throughout the day and night. Scientists today speculate that this may have been one of the brightest comets in recorded history. The appearance of this 'star' was immediately interpreted as Caesar's spirit being taken to the divine realm in the process of his deification. It was the most famous comet in antiquity, known throughout the Roman world. The poet Ovid wrote in AD8

Then Jupiter, the Father, spoke..."Take up Caesar's spirit from his murdered corpse, and change it into a star, so that the deified Julius may always look down from his high temple on our Capitol and forum." He had barely finished, when gentle Venus stood in the midst of the Senate, seen by no one, and took up the newly freed spirit of her Caesar from his body, and preventing it from vanishing into the air, carried it towards the glorious stars. As she carried it, she felt it glow and take fire, and loosed it from her breast: it climbed higher than the moon, and drawing behind it a fiery tail, shone as a star.

Matthew wrote his Gospel around a hundred years later. By then, the cult of Caesar was well established alongside the cult of Augustus, who ruled until AD14. The association of Caesar with the star as a sign of his divinity was also well known. Coins from the period regularly feature the star motif and Augustus reigned as the son of a god at the time of Christ's birth.

It is with this backdrop that Matthew tells us that magi from the East, saw a bright star in the sky, signifying the birth of a king and they followed it to find the baby Jesus in Bethlehem. Matthew's account is tailor made to invert the story of Augustus, Divi Filius, to tell the story of Jesus Christ, Son of God.

As we read that story again this year, it strikes Mouse that there remain many reports of stars heralding the gods of our day. Political stars tell us that prosperity and security can be bought at the price of our loyalty to the latest demagogue. Stars seen by 'influencers' tell us that health, happiness and well-being can be found with the purchase of the latest product, with just a small commission payment taken along the way to enrich those helping us find our path. Other stars point to a culture that seeks happiness and fulfillment in the selfish pursuit of our own desires, without the need to put others in our community before ourselves. There are many stars and their prophets seem to be greater in number than we have known for some time.

The tricky thing is not spotting bright stars, but working out which one to follow. The Romans did indeed spot a bright star in the sky, just as the magi did. But their belief that it signaled the divinity of Caesar was in error, while the magi correctly interpreted the star they saw and followed it to Jesus.

One of the keys is to avoid stars that point us to the self gratification, enrichment or status of those who spotted them. Following Jesus is a path of humility and self sacrifice, but Augustus urged others to follow the cult of Caesar for his own benefit, not for anyone else's. By contrast, the magi did not know where the star was leading them and sought no benefit in following it other than the privilege of paying homage to a new king.

As the Church of England struggles with a crisis caused by repeated and appalling failures to act on safe-guarding issues out of a sense of fear for its own position, we must more than ever follow the star that points to Jesus, wherever that leads us. And do so with the expectation of humble and sacrificial service to others.

Our story today can also invert the stories of those who look to take advantage of others for their own gain, just as Augustus did by encouraging worship of his Great Uncle, to boost his own prestige. In our case, if following the star to Jesus means accepting our personal and institutional failures, then it must be done whatever the seeming cost. Then we serve our communities with humility and grace, preaching the good news of a God who came as a baby to show us what a life of love can look like.

Our church is shrinking and that is desperately worrying, but a church which lets the vulnerable suffer and covers it up through fear that a reputation could be hurt by the truth is no church of Christ and not one worth preserving. Perhaps if we follow the star to Jesus, we should be more confident that whatever hardship we face on the road it will eventually lead us to where we need to be.

Should religious MPs declare their interest in the assisted dying debate?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 06 Dec 2024 11:32:00 +0000

The debate on assisted dying has exposed a gaping hole in our collective understanding of Christian ethics, as secular atheists demand religious arguments be labelled as such.

A frequent debate in British politics is the discussion around the extent to which faith leaders should speak up on political matters. The typical pattern is for a Christian leader to criticise something the government of the day has done on the grounds of their Christian ethics, following which they are told to get their beak out of politics by the party who has been scolded, but are applauded as an important voice of morality by the party who agrees with them.

This pattern has become so familiar that it is greeted with eye rolling by those within the Church, who respond with the pat arguments that if you don't think Jesus had anything to say about the poor and needy you can't be very familiar with his work. And Mouse suspects that the view of the general public is that we would generally expect religious leaders to speak up on eithical issues.

But there are some issues which buck this trend.

In the UK, the abortion debate lacks the intensity that it has in the US, but is still one in which the Christian voice, and particularly that of the Catholic Church, is prominent. However, their views are often labelled as 'religious objections'. The view that life begins at conception is considered a matter of faith, rather than an objective truth, so all that follows from that belief is a subjective morality, relevant only if you hold to that foundational article of faith.

This has the effect of putting those 'religious views' into a box, relevant only to religious adherents. The response from secular society is then that if you believe abortion to be wrong 'on religious grounds', then we'll respect that, but you shouldn't expect us non-believers to abide by your religious rules. The strategy of Respect and Ignore.

The debate on assisted dying came unexpectedly quickly. Mouse commented before that Church leaders appeared unprepared. The new government had long indicated it would allow a free vote on the issue, but when Kim Leadbeater secured a coveted place at the top of the ballot for private members bills in the House of Commons she pushed that vote much earlier in the Parliamentary timetable than many had expected.

It was widely observed that the debate in the Commons and the wider public debate was conducted with respect and dignity all round. It was broadly accepted that both proponents and opponents of the measure were both attempting to work through a very difficult issue, minimise suffering, balance conflicting rights and protect the vulnerable.

But there was a rumble in the debate which was not happy.

The Humanists UK accused Christian lobbyists of 'hiding' their true motivations for opposing the Bill. Lewis Goodall wrote in the i Newspaper with a similar attack on Christian MPs for being 'dishonest' about their real reasons for opposing the Bill, suggesting that they should declare their Christian faith. He notes that 'religious MPs’ opposition is rarely articulated in overtly theological terms' and that opposing assisted dying 'largely or principally on the basis of one’s own faith alone, in a modern cosmopolitan democracy such as our own, seems far from satisfactory'. The respect and ignore strategy.

There was a fascinating exchange on Radio 4's Sunday programme between Chine McDonald, Director of the Theos think-tank, and broadcaster Mark Mardell. Mardell makes a similar argument again, saying that opposing assisted dying 'for religious reasons' would amount to 'stuffing your beliefs down my throat' and that those holding such beliefs should be honest that the real reason for the opposition is not concern for coercion or a desire for better palliative care but the belief that life comes from God and only He can take it away.

It seems to Mouse that there has been a failure here to unpack what is meant by 'religious beliefs' and specifically a misunderstanding of the difference between ethics and theology.

Theology is principally concerned with understanding the nature of God, while ethics is principally concerned with how best to live in the world. Christian ethics naturally considers that question from the perspective of the Christian faith.

Even in the Church we have fallen foul of missing the distinction, sometimes intentionally. In our debates about sexuality we talk about ethical issues as if they are theological issues. We use language like 'teaching of the Church' to obscure the fact that the Church's ethical teaching is not the same type of doctrine as its theological teaching. Sometimes, this is intentional as questions of Christian ethics imply issues where different perspectives are possible and compromise is likely required. There are questions where human reason and experience come into play, rather than simply questions of Biblical interpretation. By contrast, if you can 'win' the argument with a killer exegesis on clear Biblical grounds, then compromise and perspective is out of the question. The question of how can a Christian best live in the world when it comes to sex is translated into a theological question of what the Bible says we can and cannot do with regards to sex.

Mouse suspects some of this comes from the inheritance of the protestant tradition where the questions being asked by the reformers were theological ones rather than ethical ones, primarily concerned with issues like the nature of salvation, whereas the Catholic tradition has had a greater emphasis on ethics. The tradition which trumpets sola sciptura is one which sets a firm foundation for its theology, but runs into difficulty with its ethics.

So it is no wonder that those outside the Church also miss the distinction.

When critics question the 'real' motives behind ethical objections to assisted dying, they are imagining a theological argument, along the lines articulated by Mark Mardell. A belief which relies on a matter of faith for it to hold water. If you don't believe that God is the giver of life, then the house of cards on which that argument is built falls apart. It also implies that other questions raised, such as concern for vulnerable people will be coerced or guilt-tripped into prematurely ending their lives for the convenience of uncaring relatives are seen as a smoke-screen behind which the real theological objection is hidden.

In truth, the view is an ethical one. The lessons we learn from the Christian tradition teach us how best to live with each other in the world. The message that we learn is that the world is a better place when we put in place legal measures to make sure that nobody can be coerced into ending their life and that mutuality and care for others in our community is better for us all than a society where everyone has to look after themselves. There is a theological foundation under that, but the view is also informed by reason, experience, an understanding of human nature and the human condition.

For this reason, there is a growing body of opinion who have argued that Christian ethics are of critical importance outside the Christian faith. Historian Tom Holland has persuasively argued that the secular ethics which the Church's strongest critics trumpet are, in fact, rooted in the Christian tradition from which they sprung. The secular humanism of the Humanists UK, which values personal freedom and respect for the individual are a product of the protestant reformation which insisted that each individual must make their own personal commitment to their faith. To this extent, the secular and Christian ethics at play in the debate on assisted dying are both expressions of the same philosophical tradition and it is quite wrong for one of those to suggest the other is illegitimate.

From a different perspective, the growth of 'cultural Christianity' has shown increasing numbers of people who embrace Christian ethics, recognising the benefits to society of organising itself along a strong ethical framework, while not necessarily accepting the theological beliefs from which it was derived. While some on the progressive side of the Church fear that these arguments flirt with Christian nationalism, there is a strong link with Tom Holland's perspective that the Western ethical and philosophical perspective is inherently bound with Christian ethics, but takes it further to suggest that this should not just be understood as the backdrop to our public debates, but actively championed as the organising principle for our polity.

When Mouse heard the criticisms from those arguing that religious lobbyists and MPs were 'hiding' their true reasons for opposing assisted dying, it struck Mouse that the reaction from the Church was rather confused. We weren't sure how to react to that. We certainly didn't want to deny that our faith informed out position and there was no suggestion that a Christian perspective should not be heard, but we were unable to pick apart the argument to articulate clearly that while there is a Christian foundation to our ethics, the principles being argued for stand on their own two feet whether you accept the Christian heritage from which they developed or not. The gut reaction was to assume that the old argument was being made that Christians should stick to singing hymns on Sundays and stay out of politics was being made, so some kicked back that Christians had and important point to make. While true, that is slightly off-target. The point we need to make is that Christian ethics has something important to say about how we live in community today regardless of whether you accept the theological tradition behind it. In other words, engage with the argument we're making, not the one you think we should be making.

If we're not able to re-claim this territory, then there is a real danger that anyone who holds to a religious faith will have everything they say labelled as a religious argument, to be pushed out of the public sphere and relegated into a matter only relevant to those who share those religious views. This would be a great shame not only for those within the Church who have so much to offer in ethical discussions, but also for everyone else who would unknowingly begin to divorce the ethical foundations of our society from their foundations.

The Church Mouse Christmas Reading List

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:30:00 +0000

To assist all of you looking for a Christmas reading list or some gift ideas, The Church Mouse has compiled a handy list of books published (roughly) in the last year. Each one has come with glowing reviews and a personal recommendation via Bluesky or Twitter.

Mouse has linked to a certain online book retailer so you can easily find them, but other booksellers are available and Mouse encourages you to support your local bookshop if you can.

Women of The Nativity by Paula Gooder

Mouse is a big Paula Gooder fan. This book is the latest of her genre-defying imagined histories, where she tells the nativity story through the eyes of nine women. Mary, Elizabeth and others who are recorded in history have their perspective expanded and put into focus using Paula's deep biblical expertise.

Do Not Be Afraid by Rachel Mann

Subtitled 'The Joy of Waiting in a Time of Fear' Rachel writes The Archbishop of York's Advent Book 2024 on the most Advent theme - waiting. The blurb tells us that this book contains 'luminous meditations' structured to support personal reflection and prayer over the four weeks of advent.

The Challenge of Acts by Tom Wright

Tom Wright's eminence in New Testament scholarship needs no qualification. In an accessible book, Tom takes on the book of Acts in a holistic way, setting it in its historical context in both the Greco-Roman world and its Jewish context, as well as its context within the wider New Testament narrative.

Lower Than The Angels by Diarmaid MacCulloch

The venerable church historian addresses the topic of sex and the church. Given his starting point on the subject, many have made their mind up before parting the pages on this book, but Mouse will reserve judgement until he has read it. Given Professor MacCulloch's historical expertise it deserves serious reading.

I, Julian by Claire Gilbert

A fictionalised autobiography of Julian of Norwich, which sounds absolutely brilliant. Interest in Julian has ramped up in recent years, with a compelling personal story and a message that resonates to this day. This version of her story has received rave reviews.

Fully Alive by Elizabeth Oldfiend

Elizabeth Oldfield has become an important voice as a Christian public intellectual in recent years, leading the Theos think tank and hosting a fab podcast, Sacred. She has stood down from Theos to focus on other projects and this book distils many of the topics that come through her conversations on Sacred on how to live a rich and fulfilled life in our current turbulent times.

Tis Mercy All by Natalie Williams

Mouse has loved Natalie's previous books. Natalie has a practical and authentic voice, drawing on her own lived experience of porverty and he time as CEO of Jubliee+ charity. In this book she sets out how to live a live as a 'mercy-bringer' in the world. Sounds good to Mouse.

Waking The Women by Jayne Manfredi

Jayne is a social media legend and in this book she talks about one of the last taboos in church, 'the dreaded m-word: menopause'. The book blurb says that she writes with 'refreshing frankness' (not a surprise, Jayne!) and this book has had glowing reviews, described as moving, hilarious, profoundly spiritual and much more.

Jesus and Justice by Red Letter Christians UK

25 authors share stories and insights on seeking Jesus and justice. Some contributors are well-known and others' stories have not been widely told. Mouse expects an encouraging and inspirational read.

The Lord of Psalm 23 by David Gibson

Mouse loves to find new perspectives on familiar Bible passages. Psalm 23 is one of the most well known and well loved passages in all scripture. This book draws out theological insights and reflection on God's provision for us in our lives.

Bleeding for Jesus by Andrew Graystone

Mouse is expecting a difficult read in this one, but it is something we must face, however uncomfortable it may be. This account of John Smyth's abuse draws on many victim's accounts and Andrew Graystone's extensive research. Andrew has been a champion for Smyth's victims for years and after all we have learned from the shocking Makin report, we must listen them through Andrew's account.

A church on its knees: the Welby legacy

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 07:30:00 +0000

When Rowan Williams announced he would be retiring as Archbishop of Canterbury in 2012, speculation was rife as to who would succeed him. Betting markets were active, with the bishops of London (Richard Chartres) and York (John Sentamu) both hotly tipped. But insiders noted that they were both old enough to hit retirement age before the next Lambeth Conference and canny observers spotted that the Bishop of Durham appeared to have all the qualities needed. The only catch was that he had very little episcopal experience, having been a bishop for less than a year.

In fact, Justin Welby had been noticed by insiders for some time. Before Williams announced his retirement, one bishop went as far making a wager with The Church Mouse that Welby would be Williams' eventual successor, with a Mars Bar set as the stake. Mouse paid up in full in due course.

There was a lot in Welby's background that marked him out. An impressive individual whose managerial experience in the oil industry was seen as a benefit to a church declining in numbers and in need of institutional reform to shore up its finances and fill up the pews. Bishop Welby had reformed the financial structures in Durham on his arrival there, transforming its precarious funding position.

Dr Welby, as he was then, had also worked in reconciliation and peacemaking. He displayed impressive courage and commitment and was kidnapped by armed groups on several occasions while negotiating with Al Qaeda and rebel groups in Nigeria. Not only was this a credit to his character, it also gave him global relevance in a world where Islamist terror groups were on the rise.

He fit the bill as an evangelical, following the pattern of alternating anglo-catholic and evangelical Archbishops of Canterbury and seemed to tick all the boxes required.

However, he was surprised to be considered a leading candidate. When invited for an interview, Mouse understands, he felt his chances were so low he simply turned up and spoke his mind in answer to the questions, in contrast to other candidates who presented well-prepared and politically astute scripted answers.

Despite his seemingly privileged upbringing - Eton and Cambridge then a career in the oil industry - his childhood was not a happy one. His parents were both alcoholics who divorced when he was three. In 2016 he discovered that his biological father was not Gavin Welby as he had always believed, but was Sir Anthony Montague Browne, with whom his mother had had a brief fling shortly before her marriage. Justin provided a DNA sample to the journalist who was researching the story for a book and handled the news admirably in public saying 'my foundational identity is to be found in Jesus Christ'.

“My own experience is typical of many people. To find that one’s father is other than imagined is not unusual. To be the child of families with great difficulties in relationships, with substance abuse or other matters, is far too normal. And he said that he found who he was in his religious faith, “not in genetics”.

He has frequently been open about his personal experiences, speaking on several occasions of his own experience of losing a child. The Welbys tragically lost a daughter at just seven months old in a car crash in France, which he described as 'a constant reminder of the uncertainty of life’. He used his experience to offer support and advice to other grieving parents.

He has also been open about his mental health, speaking in 2023 about his use of anti-depressants and the support that his family and faith have been. Typical of Justin Welby, he didn't just let the news get out, however. He spoke about it on Radio 4's Thought For Today and hosted a mental health conference at Lambeth Palace.

Welby's family have been by his side throughout his time in Lambeth Palace. His wife Caroline is an ever-present support and has formed a unique ministry of her own, establishing Women On The Frontline, a ministry for women across the Anglican Communion. This has led to her adopted title 'Mama Canterbury' in many nations.

Humility has been a hallmark of his leadership. He has an interview and speaking style which is open, honest and always looking for how God at work. He has frequently disarmed interviewers who are used to combative verbal duels with politicians with self deprecating humour, by simply answering the question put to him and by admitting his own, or his church's, mistakes and embarrassments.

Mouse was told that when the removal lorry had finished unloading its contents at Lambeth Palace, Welby walked into his new study and his heart sank as he looked at the extensive shelving that formerly contained Rowan Williams's personal library and was now barely half-full with Welby's. But the church was looking for a leader, not an academic theologian, and that is what we got.

On his appointment as Archbishop in 2013, Justin had two major issues on his to-do list. First was the issue of admitting women to the episcopate. In a sad end to Rowan Williams' time in office, legislation to allow women to become bishops was narrowly defeated at General Synod and the church was reeling from this outcome. It was an embarrassment to the wider public and the divisions in the church had been deepened by the process. The other issue was the continued decline in church attendance. Rowan Williams offered no major coherent response to decades of decline and many were demanding the church authorities 'do something.

On the first issue the new Archbishop made an instant impact. He put in place a series of structured listening and engagement sessions between leaders on both sides of the debate. These were not intended to find solutions - simply to meet and understand each other. After a year, sufficient goodwill had been built up that allowed new legislation to be presented which, on the face of it, offered far less to conservatives in firm concessions than the legislation that had been defeated two years before. In place of legal provisions for conservatives to continue under the oversight of male bishops came commitments from all sides to abide by a set of guiding principles which promised that everyone would be valued in the church and all would commit to the ongoing 'flourishing' of the other. It has become mandatory for candidates for ordination to assent to these principles.

That commitment has been a source of controversy and frustration for some, but it did the trick and the new legislation sailed through in 2014.

However, if there was a hope that this would usher in a new period of peace and harmony among the church's warring factions, that hope was to be short-lived. Conservatives had been organising for some time under the banner of GAFCON, a global organisation formed in 2008 in light of the US and Canadian churches' decision to embrace full inclusion for LGBT Christians and the election of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop in 2003.

The GAFCON movement took an agnostic position on the ordination of women and centred their view of orthodoxy around the issue of same-sex relationships, adding it to the historic creeds in the form of the Jerusalem Declaration. As the Church of England resolved the issue of female ordination, fissures grew wider around sexuality.

In his first year in office Justin Welby addressed the GAFCON conference. There was hope among some GAFCON leaders that Welby was at heart 'one of us'. He spoke of the need for new structures that recognised the UK's complex colonial history with many Anglican provinces and the shift in the centre of gravity in the Anglican Communion towards the global majority world. He also spoke of his own recent opposition to legislation on same-sex marriage in the House of Lords. If that was intended as an appeasement strategy, however, it was doomed to fail. In the years ahead Welby would be unable to comply with GAFCON demands, including that 'Godly discipline' be exercised on provinces within the Anglican Communion which liberalised too much on sexuality. GAFCON leaders would go on to extend their boycott of gatherings of Anglican Primates. Relations soured and the stream of angry open letters from GAFCON denouncing the Church of England and Justin Welby personally would follow.

The issue seriously marred Welby's tenure, as years of inconclusive theological reviews, facilitated conversations and synodical debates only led to increasing divisions. Conservatives eventually aligned under a new Alliance, declaring quasi-independence under a new 'de facto province' outside the formal structures of the church. Despite the increasing division very little actual change has actually been proposed, with progressives only able to go as far as blessing same sex relationships but not conduct same-sex weddings in churches. The position of clergy wishing to marry same-sex partners is yet to be decided and the formal position of the church is that its doctrine of marriage and sex are unchanged.

Welby's own view on sexuality has changed, however. Shortly after he was consecrated Mouse met with Welby at a reception and he was clear that he did not believe same-sex relationships were in line with scripture and was sceptical that he could endorse them even if they were, on the basis of the persecution that Christians in Africa would face if they were in communion with a church which held this stance. He repeated similar comments in public later. Fast forward ten years and he has finally found the words to say that he did not think that gay relationships are sinful, but that sex should be within committed relationships, whether gay or straight. The interview caused howls of rage from conservatives and forced a clarification from Lambeth Palace, but to some extent the cat was let out of the bag.

Alongside handling the new legislation on women bishops, one of Justin's early priorities was to establish the Community of St Anselm, a religious community for young people based at Lambeth Palace. In itself it is a modest programme, offering a group of young people a year living in a quasi-monastic community centered around prayer and service. But it is intended to be a symbol of the kind of church Justin Welby hopes we will be and the role that Lambeth Palace can play. Members of the community can be found at major events for the Anglican Communion as well as at Lambeth Palace with the intention 'that Lambeth Palace be not so much a historic place of power and authority, but a place from which blessing and service reach to the ends of the earth". Those who have taken part have spoken of the transformational impact it has had on their lives.

Justin Welby took on a number of causes personally, on issues of justice. Following the financial crash, the UK saw the rapid growth of payday lenders, loaning money to the desperate and cash-strapped at eye-watering rates, operating outside the traditional financial regulatory system. Welby declared a 'war on Wonga' (the most prominent payday lender) in response.

But it wasn't just words. Welby spurred the Church into creating its own Credit Union to demonstrate the ethical alternative to payday lending. He served on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards to be an active participant in public policy, not just a voice on the outside. Wonga went bust in 2018 and a raft of new financial regulations were introduced, including an interest rate cap. Looking back, many observers declared Justin Welby's crusade a success.

Archbishop has been also consistently spoken up for refugees. In 2016 he housed a family of Syrian refugees at Lambeth Palace, helping to publicise a government scheme which allowed families to host refugee families in their homes. More recently he has rebuked the previous Conservative government for their hostile rhetoric about refugees arriving on small boats from France and opposing their policy of removing refugees to Rwanda. While some Conservative politicians and commentators took the view that Welby should stay out of politics, most within the church and in the wider public took the view that it is right for religious leaders to speak out on moral issues.

On the issue of church decline, Justin Welby had a plan. It began with a process of reviewing 'what works' in growing churches, culminating in the report From Anecdote to Evidence. From there the Archbishop convinced the Church Commissioners to unlock tens of millions of pounds in funding to support new church plants and growth initiatives under a new Vision and Strategy. The new strategy was essentially to focus investment in churches which had the desire and capability to grow. That meant offering up money to churches and dioceses who could bid for cash if they offered the promise of some more bums on seats.

The jury is out on this strategy. On one level, the decline in numbers has not slowed, so we are yet to see meaningful benefit. When Welby was consecrated Archbishop the average weekly attendance in the Church of England in its annual October survey had fallen just under one million worshippers. In the last published statistics in 2022 the church had lost a third of its congregation, falling to just 654,000. All measures of engagement, such as marriages and funerals conducted are in continued decline.

Of course, some would argue that we don't know how bad the decline would have been without this investment and that it may need more time to see the effects flow through. But there is precious little evidence of meaningful growth so far. Where growth has been seen, studies seem to show that even churches which have seen impressive growth are taking a large portion of their new recruits from other churches in the area or from those who had stopped attending church for a while and that the number of genuinely new Christians being formed is very low. This is extremely problematic, as it means our evangelistic strategies do not really involve converting anyone but just convincing people who already consider themselves Christians to come to church. In a country where the number of people who consider themselves to be Christian is declining rapidly, this strategy is cannot be enough.

Others have criticised the strategy on theological grounds. It has had the effect of pushing resources into largely evangelical churches and in new initiatives rather than into the heart of parish ministry which is increasingly cash-strapped. Rural parishes typically now share a single priest across a number of parishes and there is little in the growth strategy to give them hope of being considered a 'good investment'. Anglo-Catholic ecclesiology roots its ministry in the parish and it is often not well received when a nearby evangelical church sets up within the parish boundaries under the guise of a 'new thing'. It also leads to the creation of less diverse church communities, rather than the parish-focused local community gathering of the church family. In response, a campaign called Save The Parish has been launched to attempt to re-focus the church leadership (and the cash it is dishing out in investment funding) on traditional parish ministry.

One prominent voice who has spoken out against the strategy has been the Bishop of Chelmsford, who spoke openly of her scepticism. This is particularly significant since she is hotly tipped as the favourite to succeed Welby in Canterbury.

Welby's tenure has been an eventful one in the wider world. The COVID pandemic was a traumatic event for communities around the world. For the church there was debate about an appropriate response. Church leaders instinctively kicked in with practical support for their communities, and the Archbishop did the same. Typical of his humble approach to the role, he secretly volunteered to chaplain at St Thomas's hospital, a stone's throw from Lambeth Palace. However, the advice to churches to shut their doors to try to reduce the spread of the virus was controversial. The impact of the pandemic on the church was significant, with many parishioners never to return. Congregations are still recovering in numerical terms.

He has also had a number of prominent roles, most memorably conducting the first coronation since 1953, after having conducted the funeral of the Queen. Prince Harry and Megan's wedding was another moment which put the Archbishop in the spotlight, although he was somewhat overshadowed by the sermon by a barnstorming sermon from Bishop Michael Curry which made headlines around the world.

No discussion of Welby's legacy could fail to mention the issue that brought about his resignation, however. The succession of abuse scandals has been deeply distressing. Early in Welby's tenure Bishop Peter Ball was jailed for sexual offences against 18 young men. The church was heavily criticised for its handling of the case as it emerged that he had continued to officiate in churches after having resigned in 1992 following a police caution for gross indecency with a 19 year-old man. Further high-profile cases including that of Mike Pilavachi and Jonathan Fletcher have all been subject to reviews which found that abusive behaviours were known about by the leaderships around them, but safeguarding had failed.

The resources of the central church institutions have struggled to keep up with their workloads as significant numbers of historic cases have emerged, despite an increase from just a single employee when Welby was appointed Archbishop to a team of 55 today. A review in 2022 found 383 cases which requred investigation or review. A similar review in 2010 found just 13 cases. Following each new revelation, new failures are exposed and more independent reviews are commissioned. But action has been slow.

It was the case of John Smyth which eventually led to the first ever resignation of an Archbishop. Keith Makin's review into the church's handling of Smyth's abuse was long delayed and victims of Smyth's abuse had been deeply frustrated by the way the church had engaged with them, including broken promises by Justin Welby personally to meet with them - a promise which took three years to be fulfilled in the form of a Zoom call.

When the review was finally published, it revealed not only the shocking and harrowing extent of Smyth's abuse, but also the fact that scores of people within the Church of England new about it in detail but did not report it to the police. When the case finally reached the desk of the central church authorities in 2013, Justin Welby was a brand new Archbishop. He was told that it had been reported to the police and he need do nothing more, but Makin concluded that Welby did have a responsibility to do more than simply take that advice and move on. He could and should have followed it up to make sure appropriate actions were being taken. In the event, it turned out that the police had been spoken to, but had not actually opened an investigation until the case was reported on Channel 4 in 2017.

The case was all the more eye-catching as a young Justin Welby was himself an attendee at the Iwerne Camps where Smyth groomed his victims and had met John Smyth and was close to many of those named in the cover-up.

While there were much harsher criticisms for those who actively covered up Smyth's abuse, Welby came under fire from Smyth's victims and their advocates and a coalition of those with historic grievances against the archbishop, including conservatives appalled at his change of view on same-sex relationships. It was impossible not to get a whiff of opportunism from some conservative voices who called for Welby's head following the Makin report, but their criticisms resonated with a wider call that he should take ultimate responsibility for the failures of the institution he led.

So what kind of Church of England does Welby leave behind him?

It is without doubt a humbler one in many ways - some good and some not so good. It is quite a bit smaller than the one he took over and it is an even more divided one. It would be some comfort to think that he has laid the foundations for future growth with the hard work of reform and renewal done. But sadly there are precious few green shoots to indicate that the seeds of growth planted have taken root, despite the many millions of Church Commissioner cash invested.

Welby's personal style has made the Church a more prominent voice on the national stage. He has grown in his public profile steadily and despite reports to the contrary has grown in popularity, according to YouGov. By contrast, when asked whether people have a favourable or unfavourable view of the Church of England the results are a depressing -7%.

In the short term, it remains a church struggling to deal with the Makin report, with a review into 30 church officials and clerics who were criticised in the report. Many consciences must be examined and more work is needed to quickly establish an independent safeguarding body and a funded redress scheme for victims. The track record of Archbishops' Council should also come under scrutiny as the body responsible for safeguarding in the Church which has dragged its feet on both these.

The issue of the Church's position on same-sex relationships is also unresolved, with little hope of consensus any time soon. The hope will be that the current proposals to allow blessings settle down and somehow opponents reach a reluctant acceptance of the new reality. But that won't be sufficient for proponents of further change and opponents have not shown a willingness to compromise.

So Welby leaves a Church on its knees. Humbly praying that the Lord has something new in store for the Church of England in the years ahead, but struggling with the challenges before it.

Whether this reads as a negative critique of Justin Welby's time in Lambeth Palace or not depends on whether you believe there were alternative paths that could have a greater chance of success. For Mouse's part, my judgement is that he probably did as well as he could. He has chalked up some notable successes on women bishops and on the culture of the church, and demonstrated personal integrity on a range of issues and occasions. Could an alternative plan have halted decline? Very unlikely. The downwards trend line stretches all the way back to the late 1920s and is driven by demographic and social change, not the actions of senior clerics or positions on recent issues. The hope that a deus ex machina solution is available in the forms of funding from the Church Commissions seems increasingly illusory, so perhaps a new plan is needed, either as replacement of enhancement.

But it is the actions of the extreme wings of the church which have left the deepest scars on the last decade in the Church of England under Justin Welby. The challenge for the next Archbishop is whether they will be able to tame these extremes and bring a sense of unity behind the threat of existential decline.

John Smyth: his victims and those who failed them

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:34:00 +0000

Last week saw the long overdue publication of the Makin Review - the Church of England's long running enquiry into its handling of allegations of abuse perpetrated by John Smyth within and around the Church of England. It is a report that shames many who failed to adequately respond to and support the Smyth's victims for over 40 years.

The report itself is comprehensive, detailing the nature of the abuse of up to 130 boys, precisely who knew what and when and what they did in response. Copies of correspondence between those 'in the know' from the early 1980s onwards are provided along with lengthy timelines and testimonies. The report itself is 250 pages long with hundreds more pages in appendices of additional details.

It is a very difficult read, with graphic and distressing details set out of the abuse that Smyth handed out. Long-term grooming of young boys of school age, sometimes over a period of many years, put Smyth in a position of total control over them. From this place he physically abused them with dreadful beatings in his soundproofed garden shed, dishing out hundreds of vicious lashes with a bamboo cane, undertaken with a veneer of spirituality which has left scars that will never truly heal.

There was an obvious element of sexual gratification involved, with much of the grooming centred on discussion of sexual sins and thoughts, including detailed conversations about masturbation, then the beating took place naked or semi-naked. Smyth would sometimes then caress and kiss necks and shoulders of the boys afterwards as they bled in his garden shed.

This is not the first report into Smyth's activities. As well as at Iwerne Camps, much of the grooming took place at Winchester College, one of the UK's most elite public boarding schools. The school published its report into Smyth's abuse in 2022. That too was a sickening read, setting out not only how Smyth was allowed to gain unfettered access to the school via its Christian Fellowship, but how he gained the boys' trust and groomed them into his abusive behaviours.

Most disturbingly, it revealed that these behaviours became known to Winchester College in the early 1980s, but were not reported to the police. In fact, the College felt no obligation to tell the parents of children who were exposed to Smyth that reports of this behaviour had been received.

When read together, these two documents reveal a devastating dereliction of safeguarding duties by a large number of people and organisations. Most central to the story was the Iwirne Trust, who's leadership were given a very clear picture of Smyth's abuse as early as 1982 in the form of a detailed report by Mark Ruston, who was asked to interview victims and provide details. Ruston's view, expressed clearly in his report, was that Smyth's abuse constituted criminal activity.

A small group centred around David Fletcher and the leaders of the Iwerne Trust had extensive discussions with Smyth, Winchester College and others about the abuse and how to deal with it. None felt the need to tell parents of the victims, offer any practical support to victims, seek out other potential victims or inform the police of what they knew to be criminal activities. All discussions were held on condition of strict confidentiality.

Copies of correspondence by those 'in the know' are reproduced in the Makin report. They paint a shocking picture of a group primarily concerned with covering their own backs should the abuse become more widely known and protecting the reputation and ongoing work of Iwerne. In one awful symptomatic example, Alan Martin, Director of Scripture Union at the time, wrote to Rev John Eddison, one of the Iwerne leaders:

What does concern me slightly in your letter is the reference to parents and others who have apparently voiced suspicions to you in the past, and who were reassured by you that JS [John Smyth] was a person of complete integrity. I am sure that this was said in complete good faith, and it is of course easy to be wise after the event; but I do just wonder if some of the queries should have been followed up, as of course any hint of the type of problems we are talking about in the Iwerne context could be fairly lethal. (Makin report p.102)

One assumes that Martin thought the allegations could be lethal to Iwerne rather the the victims, some of whom we know to have attempted suicide. The neglect of consideration for victims is almost beyond belief.

In other correspondence, Eddison discussed a meeting with several Iwerne leaders where they consider who they should tell about the abuse to 'completely cover ourselves against any charge of secretiveness' if it should become more widely known. This would mean, "someone will be able to say 'I was told all about it, because [Iwerne leaders] felt someone in authority should know, but I was asked not to say anything for the sake of the young men concerned.' (Makin report p.109).

The pattern is consistent - cover our own backs and try to keep the whole thing quiet.

The Makin report names numerous senior Evangelical leaders outside the core Iwerne leadership who knew, such as David McInnes, formerly of St Aldate's Oxford, Hugh Palmer, formerly of All Souls Langham Place, and Jonathan Fletcher, formerly of Emmanual Wimbledon. Those named in the report form a Who's Who of conservative evangelicalism of the period, many of whom were hugely influential for decades. Many more were informed of Smyth's abuse to varying degrees of formality and detail. None made a referral to the police. None acted to prevent future abuse from happening, something which tragically came to pass after Smyth moved to Zimbabwe in 1984 then later South Africa following his removal from positions at Iwerne and Winchester College.

The recent headlines have focused on the period from 2013 to 2017 in particular since this was the time when allegations about Smyth's abuse became known to the Church of England. Makin concludes that the response was incompetent (many believed that a referral to the police had taken place when it had not) and inadequate in failing to follow up on referrals to the Diocese in South Africa where Smyth remained active. Most painfully, the response and support offered to victims was woeful.

The Archbishop of Canterbury himself was criticised. While he was told that no more needed to be done as a referral to the police had taken place and the authorities in South Africa alerted, the Archbishop did not follow these up or assure himself that this was the case. While clear that Justin Welby did not fail in a legal or procedural obligation, the report is equally clear that he had a moral obligation. In response, the Archbishop has said in an interview that he considered resigning, but on the advice of colleagues has decided not to. When Newman asked if his failures were incompetence rather than cover up, Welby answered "yes".

Things began to change in 2017 when the allegations were featured on Channel 4 News, although the response to victims continued to be disjointed, confusing and inadequate. Nevertheless, a police investigation was finally opened, although Smyth's death in 2018 meant he evaded justice.

Others will be better placed than Mouse to go through the details of the Makin Report, alongside Winchester College's report, to work out what needs to change. Makin makes a number of recommendations and they must be taken very seriously.

However, it is important to understand what this report is, and what it is not. It is a detailed account of John Smyth's abuse and how the Church of England responded to it. It is not an overview of the Church of England's safeguarding standards and processes, its culture or an investigation into the lessons learned from other recent safeguarding cases.

This explains some major omissions from the report. Most obvious is a fact that lies only just below the surface - that Smyth's abuse took place in a startlingly similar manner to the abuse perpetrated by another senior evangelical leader within Smyth's close circle - Jonathan Fletcher. Fletcher is now awaiting trial for sexual assault, so the full details of his abuse are not yet known. However, the safeguarding charity Thirtyone:Eight conducted a review on behalf of Emmanuel Wimbledon which set out some accounts from Fletcher's victims.

Fletcher too developed coercive and abusive relationships with young men and undertook naked massages and smacking, albeit seemingly less brutally than Smyth. The Thirtyone:Eight report concludes that Fletcher's abuse was known about by leaders at Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon, before they became more widely known in 2017 but that "little or no action was taken to address this by role holders and leaders at ECW at the time."

It is almost beyond comprehension that two such abuse cases have emerged from within such a small circle and that both cases were known by leaders around them. In fact, Makin describes Smyth's abuse as 'a very open secret indeed'. It is also incredible to Mouse that Makin does not explicitly mention the fact that the central figure in the mismanagement and cover-up of Smyth's abuse, David Fletcher, was Jonathan's brother. Jonathan Fletcher is mentioned on numerous occasions in the Makin report, including accounts that he was fully aware of the nature of Smyth's abuse and involved in discussions on how to handle the situation with his brother and other Iwerne leaders. However, there is no mention that he himself was an abuser.

There is just one hint at the fact in Makin's report:

At this time and with breathtaking hypocrisy, John Smyth warned a victim of another individual, Jonathan Fletcher. He said to him that it was wrong for the Iwerne camp people to allow Fletcher to attend camps, whilst he was barred from attending. (Makin report: 12.1.94)

We are left to join the dots ourselves as to the nature of this irony.

When it comes to Justin Welby's own position, there are growing calls for his resignation, including from one diocesan bishop who felt compelled to speak out following the repercussions of another high profile safeguarding failure. He has said that he has considered his position and consulted colleagues, but will not resign. However, he may well bow to pressure in the coming days as that pressure mounts.

The first and principle issue is the extent to which Justin Welby failed in his own responsibilities with regard to the Smyth case. In this narrow view Makin lays some blows on Welby but there is no smoking gun. His failure did not extend to a breach of law or church policies or procedures. There was no evidence of any specific knowledge by Welby prior to 2013 of the allegations and following that, he was told that Ely Diocese was managing the case, that referral to the police had taken place and that the authorities in South Africa had been informed. The police must take some criticism from this report, as it emerges that five separate forces were consulted but none opened an active investigation until the Channel 4 news report in 2017.

Makin's report taken as a whole sets out a comprehensive failure of safeguarding policies, governance and processes, so there is a question whether the Archbishop should take ultimate accountability for that. This failure has been self-evidence for some time, most obviously with the ongoing voice of victims repeatedly saying that they are being re-traumatised by the Church and by the failure to establish an independent safeguarding body, as recommended by Alexis Jay in her report into how to strengthen safeguarding in the Church of England, published in February.

Questions have also been asked how credible it is that Welby genuinely knew nothing before 2013, given how closely he was involved with that wing of the church and the fact that it increasingly became an 'open secret'. He attended Iwirne camps and knew Smyth, yet appears not to have heard the gossip from other camp members. He shared a flat with Mark Ruston who compiled a detailed report in 1982 into Smyth's abuse but they appear not to have discussed it. Discussions were held and correspondence shared with a large number of conservative evangelical leaders at a number of major churches and parachurch organisations, yet Justin Welby doesn't seem to have been included or have heard the reports second hand. Still, Makin has not raised this or accused Welby of knowing more than he has let on, so Mouse is not convinced this is grounds for resignation.

It strikes Mouse that there is also another body with responsibility for safeguarding which should not escape scrutiny. The remit of the Makin report does not extend as far, but the body ultimately responsible for safeguarding in the Church of England is Archbishops' Council. That is the body responsible for establishing the right governance, appointing individuals to roles and resourcing safeguarding adequately at a national level. It is Archbishops' Council which established an Independent Safeguarding Board in 2021 to hold the Church to account, then disbanded it and sacked its board members in 2023, with a lessons learned review undertaken into the collapse of that body. No replacement has yet been established. Makin does not address the role of Archbishops' Council, as it is not involved with individual cases, but if the lesson we are seeking to learn is how to change the culture, structures, governance and policies, then Archbishops' Council comes squarely into focus.

We remain in the status of having lessons learned reports and independent reviews piling on top of each other while we mismanage support for victims and the establishment of independent oversight.

For what it is worth, Mouse is not convinced that the defenestration of the Archbishop is the answer, but Justin may well take another view if he decides that he has not been able to drive through the changes necessary and someone else should have a go.

Update:

It is impeccable timing that meant this blog post went live around 30 minutes before Justin Welby announced that he will be standing down. Mouse will provide more thoughts in due course on that, but Justin's statement can be read here.

A Very Christian Halloween

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 28 Oct 2024 07:30:00 +0000

The Pagan origins of Halloween are well documented. And largely wrong. Mouse investigates the history of spooky parties and the night of 30 October.

At every major Christian festival stories are told about how it was really a pagan holiday which Christians took over and re-sprayed as the faith grew across the Roman empire. Halloween has one of the most pervasive and pursuasive stories. Authoritative sources across the web tell us the simple tale of how the Celtic pagan festival of Samhaim was appropriated and ammended slightly to become All Hallows. According to Britannica:

Samhain, in ancient Celtic religion, one of the most important and sinister calendar festivals of the year. At Samhain, held on November 1, the world of the gods was believed to be made visible to humankind, and the gods played many tricks on their mortal worshippers; it was a time fraught with danger, charged with fear, and full of supernatural episodes.

Sacrifices and propitiations of every kind were thought to be vital, for without them the Celts believed they could not prevail over the perils of the season or counteract the activities of the deities. Samhain was an important precursor to Halloween.

The long history of linking Christian festivals to pagan ones has a mix of motives. Early stories were told by Victorian romantics who felt it was a positive to show the deeper historical roots of Christian traditions and that it lent them additional gravitas. Some reformers sought to discredit unbiblical festivities by tracing them back to paganism, with the added bonus of making their pre-reformation Catholic brethren appear superstitious and quasi-pagan. This combination has left poorly evidenced historical claims hanging in the air, which have been picked up with vigour by modern secular atheists happy to discredit Christianity entirely, suggesting it is all just a fiction invented to paper over pagan traditions.

So Mouse is glad to see historians investigating these claims and finding that almost none of them hold water. It is almost irresistible to link the ghosts and ghouls of a modern Halloween party to something pagan - it is just what we think a pagan festival might have involved. But the links are surprisingly hard to find.

Image created using Microsoft Designer AI

Let's start by looking at what we know about Samhaim.

Almost all pre-Christian North European cultures appear to have had some sort of festival around the start of November. It was a time when the harvest had been gathered and secured in the food stores for the winter. Men returned from hunting or fighting and organised their homes and affairs. Animals were slaughtered, salted and stored to be eaten through the winter. It was also an important time for tribal assemblies and gatherings, for leaders and rulers to resolve conflicts, assert their authority and offer their benevolence in feasting and gatherings. Pagan cultures would have a range of religious connotations to these events.

The Celts were peoples across much of Northern Europe. They are most well known in Ireland and Scotland, but at its height Celtic culture spread widely across northern, central and southern Europe. That said, it was not an entirely homogenous culture and there was no central authority. As a result, religious practices varied widely. While it is true to say that the festival of Samhaim was Celtic, therefore, it is more accurate to describe it as an Irish Celtic festival.

Professor Ronald Hutton has studied the beliefs of this period extensively and concluded:

Thus, there seems to be no doubt that the opening of November was the time of a major pagan festival which was celebrated, at the very least, in all those parts of the British Isles with a pastoral economy. At most, it may have been general among the ‘Celtic’ peoples. There is no evidence that it was connected with the dead, and no proof that it opened the year, but it was certainly a time when supernatural forces were especially to be guarded or propitiated; actives which took different forms in different regions.

In other words, we don't know very much about Samhaim at all. The word 'Samhaim' simply means November (or summer end literally). Since the Celts were not a literate society, our knowledge of their customs, beliefs and practices is fragmentary and should be treated with caution. When we hear claims of specific beliefs around Samhaim we should treat them with scepticism. Most are derived from writings in the 17th century and not on anything approaching contemporary evidence, so claims that 'the veil between the worlds of the living and the dead was believed to be thin at this time', of dressing up and wearing masks are, I'm afraid to say, speculation at best.

It does seem likely that feasting was taking place, conscious that the coming winter was a dark and frightening period, indeed one which often ushered in death, so festivities appear to have confronted this. Ronald Hutton again explains:

People reacted to this forbidding prospect [the coming of winter] in two different ways. One was to make it the festival of divination par excellence, in which humans most frequently tried to predict the future: and in pre-modern times the prediction most often sought was who would live through the winter. The other reaction was to mock darkness and fear, by singing songs about the spirits which personified it (in Wales, for example, the tail-less black sow and the White Lady), or dressing up as them: in other words, to confront boldly the terrors of the season now arriving.

However, it was unlikely to have been a festival of the dead, which where we find them appear to have happened in the Spring as people emerged from the winter and grieved for those who died during the winter months. Nicholas Rogers, a history professor at York University and author of Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night, “there is no hard evidence that Samhain was specifically devoted to the dead or to ancestor worship, despite claims to the contrary by some American folklorists.”

When we look at how, when and why the Christian churches celebrated All Hallows on 1 November, we have a much clearer paper trail to follow, since this began to be standardised in the 9th century, very much in the historical period.

It appears that since the very earliest recorded history of Christianity there were feasts and festivals dedicated to martyrs and the faithfully departed. The dates for these varied before Constantine. Following the conversion of the Roman empire more consistent dates began to be established. The story of how the date of 1 November became settled is long and complex, but it is clear that it had nothing to do with an Irish Celtic festival. In the 8th century, on 1st November, Pope Gregory III dedicated a chapel to all the saints in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Gregory IV then made the festival universal throughout the Church, and 1st November has subsequently become All Saints' Day for the western Church. This was standardised in the 12th and 13th centuries where other dates for the festival were more actively surpressed.

The crucial detail here is that this festival had previously been celebrated in April and was moved in the 8th century under the encouragement of Alcuin and Charlemagne based on the practice of the Frankish churches. Whatever the customs were of pagan Celts in Ireland, they were not a consideration for setting the date of 1 November for a Christian celebration of the martyrs and the faithfully departed.

Some have argued that the November date originates from Irish influences, but more recent scholarship appears to have won this argument. The November date is coincidental with Samhaim, which was not a festival of the dead anyhow.

We are left with the question of how and why the modern halloween has emerged, with dressing up as ghosts and ghouls, trick-or-treating, carving pumpkins and the like. These appear to have been Irish traditions imported to America during the 18th and 19th centuries where the practices caught people's imaginations and became attached to All Hallows Eve.

Mouse draws no conclusion on how Christians should respond to Halloween celebrations today. But we shouldn't be afraid that our kids are accidentally taking part in pagan festivities by putting a pumpkin outside their front door.

Bishops in the House of Lords?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:29:00 +0000

The new Government is proposing a Bill to remove all hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Conservative MP and Anglican Gavin Williamson has announced that he will introduce an amendment to remove the entitlement of Church of England bishops to sit in the House of Lords. Mouse takes a look at the history, purpose and performance of the Lords Spiritual.

Image created using Microsoft Designer AI

The Bishop's formal role in the House of Lords traces its origins to the 14th century when two distinct parliamentary bodies emerged. The representatives of the shires and boroughs became known as the Commons, and the meetings of magnates and church leaders became the Lords.

Until the 16th century, the Lords Spiritual were Bishops as well as Abbots and Priors from the monasteries and priories. Following the suppression of the monasteries in 1539, only bishops remained.

Bishops have been removed from Parliament for a short period before. In 1642 they were removed during the civil war, following which the House of Lords itself was abolished before it resumed sitting in 1660. The bishops returned following the Clergy Act of 1661. During this period, the Commons established its primacy over both the King and the Lords, culminating in the 1689 Bill of Rights.

While the Lords Spiritual only come from the Church of England, this has not always been the case. Welsh bishops were historically represented since the Welsh and English Church was united until the 20th century. Following the 1800 Act of Union with Ireland, four senior Irish clergy were sent to the Lords. However, following the disestablishment of the Irish and Welsh churches in 1869 and 1914 respectively, the Welsh and Irish bishops lost their rights to sit in the Lords.

The Scottish church went in quite a different direction. Historically, Bishops, Abbots, and Priors had sat in the Scottish Parliament, as their equivalents had done in England. The nature of the reformation, however, took the church in a different direction in Scotland and it became a presbyterian church, removing the role of bishop altogether. Scotland has never sent clerics to the UK Parliament.

The current composition of the Lords Spiritual, with 26 bishops entitled to sit, was finalised in 1847 following the establishment of the Bishopric of Manchester. This results in 21 senior Diocesan Bishops (out of 44 dioceses) sitting in the Lords alongside the two Archbishops and bishops of London, Durham and Winchester, which are permanent roles.

The nature of the House of Lords itself has similarly evolved. From an initial entitlement to sit in Parliament on a hereditary basis on equal footing with the Commons, the Lords today has a hollowed-out Parliamentary role and a reformed membership. Life Peerages were created in 1958 (largely) in the gift of the sitting Prime Minister. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 finally established the total supremacy of the Commons, removing the right of the Lords to block legislation that has been approved by the Commons and reducing the Lords' ability to delay the enactment of Bills passed by the Commons. Tony Blair's reforms removed all but a rump of hereditary peers and made the Upper House a wholly appointed body, with the role of debating and revising legislation, but ultimately one which cannot compel the Commons to act or prevent the Commons from acting, if it is determined not to.

Historically the Lords also had a judicial role as the ultimate court of appeal for civil and criminal cases (with the exception of criminal cases in Scotland which were dealt with in the Scottish judicial system). Appeals were heard by specially appointed Law Lords. However, this role was also removed in 2009 with the establishment of the UK Supreme Court.

Despite all this change, Lords reform has the sense of an incomplete process. The Coalition Government of 2010 initiated Lords reform with the intention of creating a significantly smaller House which would be 'largely or wholly' elected. However, disputes between coalition partners led to that legislation being dropped. Interestingly, the proposals included the retention of the Lords Spiritual, albeit in slightly reduced numbers.

Mouse observes, however, that the question on most reformers' lips is 'what should the Upper Chamber look like' rather than 'what should the Upper Chamber do'. The discussion is dominated by the methods of appointing or selecting peers, rather than on their powers and prerogatives, making it a lopsided discussion, struggling to explain why the chamber should be elected or appointed without an adequate explanation of what the purpose of the chamber is in the first place.

Today, a range of criticisms are levelled at the makeup of the Lords. The rump of hereditary peers feels like a historical relic, for example. And, of course, there have been calls to remove the automatic right of bishops to sit in the Lords. It is, however, the appointments process which has attracted the most criticism. Successive Prime Ministers have appointed new peers at impressive rates in an attempt to level up the numbers on party lines, leading to an ever-growing group of Peers, now totaling over 800 with no mandatory retirement age in place. Each PM has favoured appointees based on political persuasion, which regularly attracts scrutiny. And some individual appointments have attracted particular controversy. Boris Johnson's decision to appoint the son of a Soviet KGB agent was a notable case, although there are plenty of historical examples, such as Harold Wilson's infamous 1976 resignation honours, known as the 'Lavender List'.

Source: House of Lords Library

In this context, some have argued that the Bishops are a model of consistency, probity and integrity, being free from a duty of obligation to the politician or party who nominated them. Democratic arguments are futile in a body which is clearly undemocratic to its fingertips, and a group with a form of 'ex officio' presence makes some sense.

The English Bishops sit as independents. They have not formed a 'party' and do not agree on lines to take or which way to vote. They are, however, organised to some extent. A 'convenor', currently the Bishop of St Albans, Alan Smith, ensures through a rota system that there is some presence in the upper house, not least to formally open business for the day by reading prayers. Different bishops also agree to take the lead on particular issues where they have a strong interest, specialism or experience. Nevertheless, bishops can essentially turn up whenever they want, speak or vote whenever they want and however they want.

As a result, they tend to have sporadic attendance, speaking and voting records. Their attendance has averaged around 15% in recent parliaments. Mouse observes that their voting record tends to skew towards issues they are voting against rather than issues they are voting for. This has particularly been the case in recent Parliaments, with less than 5% of their votes supporting the government since 2019 as their participation in Parliamentary votes jumped significantly then too.

The bishops hold fewer than 3% of all votes and Mouse cannot identify a single vote where they can be said to have clinched the outcome. However, it is often said that their contributions carry considerable moral weight, so their influence is likely greater than their votes alone.

The excellent Church in Parliament website keeps a record of all the bishops' interventions and votes and a scroll through that shows that they tend to speak and vote on moral and social issues, or bring out the moral and social issues in wider topics, which is to be expected.

It is unlikely that Gavin Williamson's amendment will succeed. But pressure for wider reform of the House of Lords is building and a wider package of measures is more likely to include reform of the Bishops' bench.

Support for the current position is thin on the ground. A recent survey of clergy by The Times revealed that only a third of clergy thought the current position should remain. Most argued either for an expansion of the presence of religious leaders from a range of traditions (45%) or other reforms to reduce the number or remove the bishops from the Lords altogether (15%).

A recent YouGov poll showed that 52% of the public supported the removal of the bishops' entitlement to sit in the Lords, and 55% agreed that the Lords should be wholly elected. Only 16% supported retaining the current model.

The best argument the bishops have for keeping their place seems to be that they are a positive presence in the Lords and a proposal to remove them should take a wider review to ensure it doesn't simply make the Lords a worse place.

Mouse's take is that it is impossible to argue that the current setup is anything other than a historical anachronism. However, there are some benefits. The bishops undoubtedly add a positive moral voice in the Lords. Whatever reforms come next, Mouse would advocate for a positive voice from religious communities, including the Church of England, and it would be unwise to remove that from the current Lords without an alternative in place. His advice to the Bishops is to get to work on engaging with the issue and proposing options for the future, as it is unlikely the status quo will remain forever.

Is the Church of England getting out of the marriage business?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:19:00 +0000

The Church of England appears to be in full scale retreat from the job of marrying people. And this is happening as the new government has indicated it intends to reform marriage law, which could have significant implications for the Church of England.

One of the historic articles of faith in the good old CofE has been that no matter how empty the pews are on a Sunday, somehow people will find their way back to Church for its role in the holy trinity of life events, to hatch, match and dispatch - to christen babies, marry couples and bury the dead.

Mouse is hear to beak the news that the evidence appears to show that this belief is build upon sand. Perhaps partly in response to this context, major reforms of marriage laws is planned and the new government has committed to take this forward.

In 2022 the Law Commission published a review of 'outdated wedding laws'. This review made a series of recommendations, including:

equalising the marriage law across different religions and beliefs, removing the privileged position the Church of England holds in marriage law and allowing ministers of other religions and non-religious groups (notably humanists) to conduct legal marriages
liberalise the law which restricts weddings to licenced venues - typically places of worship or licenced secular venues - and move to a model where the officiant is authorised, rather than the venue
removing the distinction between religious and civil weddings and moving to a legal construct for a licenced officiant to undertake weddings on an equal basis, retaining freedom for religious weddings to hold to their formularies and traditions
modernising the legal process around weddings, such as allowing couples to give notice of a wedding online

These proposals are only hypothetical, however, and we wait to hear more detail of the new government's intentions in this area. Their manifesto contained only a pledge to reform the law in relation to cohabiting couples, but they have made noises about legalising humanist weddings, and given a nod to the Law Commissions proposals. In response to a Parliamentary question on this issue in July, for example, Justice Minister, Alex Davies-Jones, said:

We are aware that weddings are an important issue for humanists and that the Law Commission has made recommendations for wholesale change of weddings law in July 2022. We will take the time as a new Government to properly consider this issue. We will set out our next steps on our manifesto commitment to strengthen rights and protections for women in cohabitating couples in the near future.

Within this context, one would expect the Church of England to be a significant voice. Many believe that it is the Church of England which marries many, if not most, couples in England. But this is not so.

Statistics on weddings have been dropped from the Church's annual statistical summary, Statistics for Mission, perhaps an indication of their status, but they are still available from the Office of National Statistics (where they combine the numbers for England and Wales). Mouse has run the numbers.

You don't need to be a stats wizard to see that the gap between the blue line (all marriages between opposite-sex couples) and the yellow line (marriages in the Church of England and Church in Wales) is getting bigger. In fact, the proportion of CofE / CiW marriages has dropped from around half in the early 1960s to 13% in 2022.

Church-watchers with long memories will remember the launch of a major initiative back in 2010 called the Weddings Project. It was designed to catch de-churched or un-churched couples on the look-out for a special place and way to tie the knot. A national team was assembled, resourced developed to support parishes and dioceses were engaged. There were even suggestions that it was making a difference. The decline was, to some extent stemmed. The proportion of CofE / CiW weddings stabilised at around 24% for a while.

But it was canned.

It didn't help the project that following the legalisation of gay marriage in 2013, the CofE project was constantly followed by the caveat that church weddings are only available to opposite-sex couples, in an age when an increasing number of marriages were between same-sex couples, and opposition to gay marriage is often simply considered homophobia.

But the reason for killing the initiative was that the strategy in vogue for church growth was swinging away from centralised teams pushing for growth and swinging towards centralised bodies dishing out cash to big churches to help them plant new churches or revive flagging churches under a new 'Vision and Strategy'. A number of central teams were abolished and the Life Events team was one of them. Since that time the decline in the proportion of weddings held in the Church of England or Church in Wales has accelerated.

Whether this new vision and strategy for church growth will work or not remains to be seen, but at least by the measure of wedding numbers the strategy is yet to show any fruits. Mouse is always very conscious that individual's decisions around where and how to marry depend on many things outside the control of the Church. But it is hard to believe that the church can have no impact.

Mouse's take on all this is that we are failing in this area. Whatever your views on same sex weddings, a full scale retreat from marriage cannot be good news for the Church.

Belief in God is up

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 03 Oct 2024 06:00:00 +0000

Latest tracking survey reveals an increase in belief in God in the UK. But it isn't all good news.

Mouse's friend Justin Brierley has written a fascinating book called The Surprising Rebirth in Belief in God. His thesis is that the new atheist revolutionaries, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens have rather gone out of fashion and newer generations are beginning to show greater interest in Christianity than previous generations.

If Church attendance in the UK is anything to go by, however, there has not yet been a reversal in the long term trend of decline. While there are growing churches in the UK, Mouse is yet to see any evidence that there is statistically significant levels of growth and many growing churches face accusations that their growth comes at the expense of other churches in their local area.

Similarly, the landmark British Social Attitudes survey has asked about religious affiliation for decades and the trend line has not budged in years - those who report they are a Christian fall year-on-year and those who claim no religion rises.

So this Mouse is always pretty sceptical when he hears preachers claiming that revival is just around the corner.

However, attendance and affiliation tell us little about belief. To that end, YouGov have been tracking a couple of very basic questions about belief in God for the past five years, which gives us a couple of tasty statistical morsels to get our teeth into.

There are a few striking headlines. The first is that there appears to have been a small but notable trend over the five year period of increase in belief in god (from 26% to 30%) and decrease in disbelief in god (41% to 38%). Revival it is not, but the trend appears steady and consistent.

Digging into the data tables it is striking that the increase seems to have been greatest among the 18-24 demographic, jumping from 22% who reported a belief in god to 39% over the five year period. Mouse suggests some caution due to the small sample size, but by Mouse's slightly sketchy understanding of statistics this appears to be statistically significant to a reasonable degree of confidence.

It is also notable that the increase is entirely accounted for by men. The numbers for women have not budged, although in absolute terms men remain far more likely to say they do not believe in god (43% Vs 32%).

So should we rejoice at this positive trend in belief? Unfortunately, the data has a sting in the tail. YouGov also asked about views on religion. When asked that question, only 20% of Brits said that 'Religion on the whole has a positive influence on the world' and a whopping 57% said that it had a negative influence.

To put that poll rating in perspective, religion is less liked than Rishi Sunak.

It is fair to say that the religion question is significantly broader than the belief question, in that respondents are likely to think of the effect of religion globally, which may draw them to conflict zones and issues of extremism. It is certainly not a question directing people to say whether they think the Church of England is a positive influence on the world.

Nevertheless, it is a hard sell to convince people to join a religion when they think religion is a negative force in the world.

Overall, however, Mouse is heartened by this data. Since around 1% if the population currently attend church, there does appear to be an opportunity to have a chat with the other 29% of the population who hold some form of belief in god.

The Rest is (Beard) History

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 20 Sep 2024 06:00:00 +0000

Congratulations to top historians and podcasters Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook on their recent podcast on the history of beards. Their podcast, The Rest is History, has taken the podcast world by storm, featuring in the top handful of podcasts in numerous rankings. In June, the Telegraph reported that it has had 200m downloads, and it has spawned a monthly subscription club for additional content and a chat community, two books and a live tour.

Ancient historian Tom Holland, well known in Christian circles for his book Dominion, and modern historian Dominic Dandbrook discuss an immensely varied range of historical topics from the profound to the frivolous. And so, it was natural that they undertook a two-part mini-series on the history of the beard.

Mouse can report that it was overall well-researched and entertainingly presented. Key aspects of beard history were suitably covered. They began, as Mouse's Beard Theology does in the cradle of civilisation in Mesopotamia, where kings would wear long beards to show their status as manly warriors, but priests would shave to present themselves as pure before the gods. They cover Roman and Greek beards, with a strong showing from top ancient historian Holland on point.

The series moved swiftly into the modern period. Had there been more time available they might have dwelled longer on the split between the Latin and Orthodox Church in 1054 in which the beard featured strongly. For Mouse, that story is emblematic of the role of beards through history - as markers of identity.

The story Holland and Sandbrook told about the modern era was focused more into fashion than theology, which is understandable. However, there remains a theological underpinning which could have been explored further with more time. With the space Mouse had in his book to expand on the topic he was able to tell more of the story through the medieval period, where the first beard theology was written by Abbot Burchard who theorised that priests should shave their outer beard as a sign of humility but develop their 'inner beard'.

The modern church had an uneasy relationship with the beard through the 1960s and 70s when it was emblematic of rebellious sub-cultures, before making its peace with the beard eventually leading to Archbishop Rowan Williams winning the coveted Beard of The Year trophy.

Mouse highly recommends The Rest is History in general and these episodes in particular. And if you enjoy it why not expand on it with Mouse's Beard Theology where you can also read about Henry VIII's beard-growing competition with Francis I of France, why the Devil has a beard and many other entertaining tales.

Image created with Microsoft Designer AI

The veneration of Jesus's foreskin

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 18 Sep 2024 05:51:00 +0000

Sometimes, Mouse finds something that sounds totally bizarre, and yet, for centuries was considered totally normal. For example, he has written at length on the theological importance of beards. With the resurrection of The Church Mouse Blog, I'll be sharing a few more of these stories in the weeks and months ahead. Today, we have the fable of the foreskin - Jesus’s foreskin, to be precise. But before we get there, we need to back up a little.

The history of relics is worthy of a full post in its own right. It is often wrongly assumed that the veneration of relics was a medieval invention concocted by rapacious religious authorities to dupe and exploit the unsuspecting faithful. In fact, the veneration of relics goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. Drawing on stories from the Bible of the miraculous effect of touching the bones of the prophet Elisha in 2 Kings 13 or the healing of the bleeding woman by touching Jesus’s cloak, relics have always been a focus for veneration. This was taken for granted by writers like Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa and Chrysostom.

The Church’s position of relics was first formalised at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. They agreed that only God performs miracles and only God is worthy of worship, so icons and relics are not worshipped and contain no inherent magical qualities. However, they could act as a focus of worship of God, and the saints could intercede on our behalf with God. The council concluded (my emphasis):

The divine apostle Paul said: The sins of some people are manifest, those of others appear later. Some sins take the front rank but others follow in their footsteps. Thus in the train of the impious heresy of the defamers of Christians, many other impieties appeared. Just as those heretics removed the sight of venerable icons from the church, they also abandoned other customs, which should now be renewed and which should be in vigour in virtue of both written and unwritten legislation. Therefore we decree that in venerable churches consecrated without relics of the holy martyrs, the installation of relics should take place along with the usual prayers. And if in future any bishop is found out consecrating a church without relics, let him be deposed as someone who has flouted the ecclesiastical traditions.

Thus, the Church formally established the requirement for all Churches to have a relic, and the hunt and trade in relics boomed, alongside the practice of pilgrimage to venerate a particularly holy saint or martyr’s relics - particularly those with a proven track record of miraculous results.

By the 13th century, the sale of fake relics and the exploitation surrounding them had become sufficiently embarrassing for the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III in 1215 to decree:

The Christian religion is frequently disparaged because certain people put saints’ relics up for sale and display them indiscriminately. In order that it may not be disparaged in the future, we ordain by this present decree that henceforth ancient relics shall not be displayed outside a reliquary or be put up for sale. As for newly discovered relics, let no one presume to venerate them publicly unless they have previously been approved by the authority of the Roman pontiff. Prelates, moreover, should not in future allow those who come to their churches, in order to venerate, to be deceived by lying stories or false documents, as has commonly happened in many places on account of the desire for profit. We also forbid the recognition of alms-collectors, some of whom deceive other people by proposing various errors in their preaching, unless they show authentic letters from the apostolic see or from the diocesan bishop. Even then they shall not be permitted to put before the people anything beyond what is contained in the letters.

Alongside this belief in relics was a particular belief in the physical resurrection. The resurrection of the dead is a central Christian belief from the earliest times, but ideas about exactly how this will happen have evolved.

The physical resurrection expected by the average early medieval or medieval Christian involved the reconstitution of the former earthly body. They would literally rise from the grave. This caused a great deal of theological gymnastics around what constituted the essential matter of the person which would form their resurrected body and which was incidental material which would not. Not every toenail clipping was believed to be glued back to those resurrected, but surely they needed arms and legs.

This even included another strange obsession with what would theoretically happen to the body of a Christian baby which had died after existing exclusively on a cannibalistic diet - since all of their body was made up of other people’s bodies, would all of that matter reform into their original owner’s resurrected bodies and if so, would there be anything left of the cannibal baby at the resurrection? The matter was never conclusively decided.

This belief in physical resurrection led to a particular reverence for saints' bones as it was believed they continued to hold some essence of the saint after their death, and the bone would be reunited with the original owner's body when the Lord returns and there is a physical resurrection of the dead.

Once again, it was at the Fourth Lateran Council that the nature of the physical resurrection was first formalised in Church teaching, which concluded (my emphasis):

He [Christ] will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.

It is within this belief system that one particular relic emerged - that of Jesus’s foreskin.

Jesus’s circumcision is attested in Luke chapter 2, with the presentation of Jesus at the temple for the traditional rites. Theologians began to speculate about what happened to Jesus’s circumcised foreskin, however. Surely, Jesus’s body was incorruptible, so any part of it which was separated from His body would not decay and would presumably be reunited with the rest of His body when He returns and ushers in the resurrection of the faithful.

Our first evidence of stories about the Holy Prepuce (foreskin) appear around the fifth or sixth centuries with the apocryphal Syriac Infancy Gospel. Two 12th-century copies remain, containing the story that the Holy Prepuce was preserved in an alabaster box.

The relic shot to fame at the start of the 9th century. Charlemagne established an empire of a size not seen since the fall of the Western Roman Empire across continental Europe and reclaimed the legacy of those Roman Emperors by establishing the Holy Roman Empire. He did this with the backing of the papacy and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in AD800. Christmas Day of that year, Charlemagne made a gift to Pope Leo III of the relic of the Holy Prepuce.

Provenance for the relic was clearly an issue, so Charlemagne made the irrefutable and unprovable claim that it had been given to him by an angel while he was praying at the Holy Sepulchre. Leo III placed the relic under the altar of the Chapel of St Lawrence in Rome, originally the private chapel of the papacy.

Sadly for Charlemagne, numerous rival claims to hold the relic proliferated. Researcher David Farley identified dozens of medieval churches which claim to have the relic.

Discussion of Jesus’s foreskin was clearly not considered peculiar through the Middle Ages, although one of the stranger references came from the 14th-century saint Catherine of Sienna. She wrote about a vision she had in which she received Jesus’s foreskin as a wedding ring to symbolise her marriage to Christ. She wrote:

You see very well that you are a bride and that he has espoused you - you and everyone else - and not with a ring of silver but with a ring of his own flesh. Look at the tender little child who on the eighth day, when he was circumcised, gave up just so much flesh as to make a tiny circlet of a ring!”

When disaster struck and Rome was sacked in 1527, the relics from St Lawrence were stolen, although the German soldier who stole it was captured in Calcata, around 50km north of Rome, and the relics were housed there.

It is the Calcata relic which stood the test of time.

In the wake of the Protestant Reformation, the obvious excesses of the trade and exploitation of relics were clamped down on by the Catholic Church. In the centuries that followed, talk of the Holy Prepuce became more controversial. Eventually, this led to a papal decree in 1900 threatening excommunication on anyone who even discusses the Holy Prepuce (Mouse’s source for this claim is David Farley, although Mouse hasn’t been able to track down the actual papal decree, so please drop a link in the comments if you can find it).

In 1610, Galileo Galilee pointed his telescope up at the stars and noticed something odd about the planet Jupiter. When magnified, there appeared to be what Galileo first described as ‘ears’ on either side of the planet. At first, he believed them to be two other smaller planets nearby, but as observations improved, these were found to be mysterious rings circling the planet.

This discovery coincided with the efforts of the church following the Reformation to deal with some of the excesses which had led to so much trouble. The keeper of the Vatican library at the time was Leo Allatius, who took a keen interest in the new field of astronomy, and as the tide began to turn on attempts to divorce the church from the field of scientific discovery, creative attempts were deployed to reconcile the two. And so Allatius wrote De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba (Discourse on the Foreskin of our Lord Jesus Christ), in which he advocated the theory that Christ’s foreskin had ascended into the heavens and had been left visible in the sky and had become the rings of Saturn.

Gradually, the church withdrew support for many claimed relics, including those with a claim to be the Holy Prepuce, although Calcata clung onto belief in their prized relic, parading it through the town each year. Until 1983. The priest in charge of it had taken to hiding it under his bed for safekeeping and discovered that it had been stolen before it could be paraded that year.

And so the last remaining claim on Christ’s foreskin was lost … for now at least.

If you would like to read more about the fable of the foreskin, Mouse recommends David Farley’s book An Irreverent Curiosity: In search of the Church’s strangest relic in Italy’s oddest town.

Image generated using Microsoft Designer AI

Proposals for reform of episcopal appointments to be debated

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 13 Sep 2024 06:30:00 +0000

Mouse previously commented on the failure of the Church Nominations Commission to conclude on two successive vacancies for senior bishops. This has left two dioceses without permanent leadership for extended periods and raised the prospect that the process is ‘broken’. Many (including Mouse) speculated that this could be due to a stalemate in the Commission with positions hardened following the proposals for prayers of blessing for gay couples, although the activities of the Commission itself are conducted under strict secrecy.

Following the second failure, for the Diocese of Ely, Justin Welby commented that this is a serious issue and would be looked at. Mouse can only report that the efficiency with which proposals have been brought forward has shocked this observer. Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London, has reviewed the position and is bringing proposals for reform to the House of Bishops at their meeting on 18 September, a hastily arranged meeting called specifically to discuss this issue. Should agreement be found there, proposals will be presented to Synod for adoption.

Bishop Sarah’s paper sets out only at a very high level the problems and presents a series of proposals for change. There are some changes proposed in the short term, obviously designed to reduce the likelihood of further deadlocks, alongside the recommendation to follow those with a longer-term review. The key elements are:

Remove the secret ballot and make voting within the CNC open to other CNC members
Reduce the threshold required for an appointment by one vote - notionally reducing the majority required from 71.4% to 64.4% for diocesan appointments
Give the presiding Archbishop an extra casting vote where a conclusion has not been reached after three rounds of voting
Introduce a code of conduct for CNC members
Change the rules for Vacancy in See Committees (the group from the diocese which sets out its requirements to the CNC) to prevent more than one clergy or lay person from sitting on the ViSC and in the reps they elect to the CNC from the same parish or church community and to ensure there is at least one female clergy and lay representative on the ViSC

At this point these are just proposals to be discussed in the House of Bishops, so we will wait to see what emerges from that and the final proposals that are put to Synod, most likely in February 2025. For those who studied Mouse’s piece on this topic, this is all very much in line with his suggestions. Making more fundamental changes may well be desirable, but given the need to ensure we can function and make appointments now and to prepare for the expected retirement of Justin Welby when he turns 70 in around 18 months, it is sensible to make some immediate short-term changes.

Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London

Of the list that Bishop Sarah has put together, Mouse would broadly endorse them, although I expect there will be further tweaks to these proposals before they come to Synod. The one which caused Mouse’s eyebrows to rise was the proposal to prevent multiple representatives from a single parish on a ViSC. I understand that this has happened in previous ViSCs, so there may be some specific history there.

It is also quite pertinent. The CNC is currently deciding on nominations for the next Bishop of Coventry. The six CNC members selected from the Diocese’s ViSC include Rev Jonathan Jee, vicar of St Paul’s, Leamington Spa, and Chair of Coventry Diocese Evangelical Fellowship, alongside Alicia Sampson, PCC member at St Paul’s Leamington Spa. The Coventry Diocese Evangelical Fellowship which Jee chairs holds to the CEEC basis of faith and recently issued a statement condemning the decision of Synod to move forward with the blessing of gay couples. In his maiden speech in Synod, Jee said that the LLF debate reminded him of a youth group asking what sexual acts they could ‘get away with’ and that the Synod debate was asking “how far can we go with flirting with blessing sexual immorality?”

So next time round the votes of 14% of the CNC will come from a single evangelical parish and Mouse wouldn’t be betting against another failure to make an appointment.

This aspect of the proposals is also somewhat more complex to put into practice. It is clearly an attempt to fix an underlying problem of activist parishes dominating local elections within dioceses and deaneries by rigging the outcome of a supposedly democratic process. I expect this will need some working through in practice.

The only additional proposal Mouse would encourage the Bishops to consider is the idea of a fall-back mechanism should the CNC fail to conclude entirely. Other provinces in the Anglican Communion have such mechanisms, such as the reversion of the appointment to the House of Bishops with ratification by Synod. This acts as both a means to make an appointment in a more timely manner and an incentive for the CNC to conclude and avoid the issue being taken out of their hands.

Mouse will, of course, be on hand to update you as this develops.

There is a translation error in the Lord's prayer

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 11 Sep 2024 06:00:00 +0000

I previously bought you information of why Jesus wasn't actually called Jesus. In a similar vein, Mouse raises the issue of the translation problem in the Lord's Prayer.

The 'Our Father' is in many respects part of the cultural fabric of the nation. Even those who never set foot in a church will likely recall the words when prompted and many use the prayer as part of their daily devotions and regular cycle of prayer.

Some still smart at the 'modern' translation, which switches 'forgive us our trespasses' with 'forgive us our sins', out of a reverence for the tradition and elegance of the King James Version. Mouse is agnostic on that issue, but it speaks to the extent to which the prayer is known and loved that it is almost the only piece of scriptural translation that can provoke this sort of debate outside of academic circles.

More recently, the Pope caused a stir in 2017 when he said that 'lead us not into temptation' is not a good translation. God would never lead anyone into temptation, so he preferred 'let us not fall into temptation'.

It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation. I am the one who falls. It’s not him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen.

A father doesn’t do that; a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation – that’s his department.

These issues, however, are what Donald Rumsfeld would describe as 'known unknowns'. We know what the Greek means and are simply searching for the best rendering into English.

But there is a bigger problem lurking in the text. It is known as a 'hapax legomenon'. A hapax legomenon is a word that appears only once in ancient texts. Having just a single example of a word makes translation extremely difficult as we have no other contexts to which we can refer to fully understand how the word is used and what it means. And the Lord's Prayer has one. Well, technically it is a dis legomenon - a word that appears only twice - since it appears in both Matthew and Luke's gospel, but that hardly helps as they are repeating the same story in the same context.

The word in question is epiousion - this is traditionally translated as 'daily' in the context of 'Give us each day our daily bread'.

When Mouse first heard this translation issue it occurred that it is a very strange sentence construct to say 'give us each day our daily bread'. And now he knows why.

This is also a great example of the translation challenges we have with the Bible. The first translation challenge is the realisation that Jesus's words probably weren't spoken in the Greek that the gospels were written in, so the gospel writers have already translated them from Aramaic into Greek. Since this word appears in no other surviving ancient text, it is quite possible that it was coined by the gospel writers for the purpose of the prayer. Then we have the issue of dealing with the ancient form of Greek.

When we turn to the issue of how to translate epiousion several options have been offered up by credible sources.

The Tyndall Bible and the King James Bible opted for 'daily' and other translators used the same logic with a twist, such as 'bread for today'. This is based on breaking the word into its component parts - epi as “for” and ousia as meaning something like “for the being” with an implicit context of the current day. Epiousion also looks a lot like epiousei which appears several times in Acts, to mean 'next' as in 'the next day', and it has been suggested that epiousion could be a masculinised version of epiousei.

But most modern scholars reject this translation as it is just too tenuous an etymology and there are lots of examples of 'daily' in the New Testament which don't use the term epiousion.

There is an inherent weakness on relying on simply breaking the word into its components without understanding the context. Imagine a world in which the English language became extinct and only fragments were available for future translators to work with. When they read a text that said the writer was uncomfortable with the 'vibe' of something, a translator may assume that the root of 'vibe' being 'vibrations' meant that the writer was uncomfortable with the physical effects caused by something vibrating. They may have missed the Beach Boys seminal work 'Good Vibrations' which brought an entirely new colloquial meaning to the term.

Jerome came up with a novel solution when he created the Vulgate, the latin version of the New Testament. He came up with the term 'supersubstantial' (in latin supersubstantialem). This is also based on breaking epiousion into its components but coming to a different conclusion on how to translate those components - epi as “super” and ousia as “substance”. This has the blessing of the Catholic Church which believes this, or alternatively 'superessential' is the better rendering. The Catechism talks to the multiple layers of meaning this leads us to, ultimately pointing to the bread that we all need - the body of Christ.

The problem with this is that it isn't really a translation - if you are inventing a new word to translate something into, you haven't really translated it at all. The reader has to carry on the work by figuring out what 'supersubstantial' means.

Others have suggested alternatives, such as 'bread that doesn't run out' or 'the bread we need'. These are less based on a strict translation, however, and ultimately rely on a guess at what the authors might have been trying to suggest - in some ways a more authentic attempt at translation, but attempts that can neither be verified or falsified.

So where do we land? Ultimately the only conclusion we can legitimately draw is that we don't really know what epiousion was intended to mean. That may be uncomfortable, given its place in the prayer Jesus taught us, but the fact remains that we don't. We can plump for a translation which seems to carry the ring of truth about it, but that is probably the best we can do. For Mouse's part, I'm happy to stick with 'daily' and enjoy the wonderment.

The implication of this, however, is that while we should continue to study the scriptures with diligence, we must remember that they are there to point us to the one who saves, and should not become the subject of worship themselves. We should expect to continue to learn more about our translation choices as we continue to study more ancient texts, enhancing our contextual knowledge of the language and context of the scriptures and should recognise the reality that there are real challenges with translating ancient texts.

Why do priests in the Church of England wear robes?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 05 Sep 2024 06:00:00 +0000

Mouse was asked an excellent question on the platform formerly known as twitter the other day. The jist of it was why priests wear robes. There were a few instant reactions, but Mouse felt the need to dig a little deeper. Here's what Mouse found.

The wearing of robes (vesture) in the Church of England is, like many things, governed by Church Law. In this case, Canons B8 and D27.

Canon B8 starts with:

The Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture permitted by this Canon, and the vesture worn by the minister in accordance with the provision of this Canon is not to be understood as implying any doctrines other than those now contained in the formularies of the Church of England.

This is both an important theological statement and what poker players call a ‘tell’.

The theological statement is clear enough - as far as the church is concerned, there is no inherent theological significance to any particular form of clothing for priests. The tell is that this needs to be said at all and that it was felt necessary to stress that the canon should not be misinterpret to imply a theological point.

What follows in the rest of the Canon are two things which sit rather strangely together. The canon contains a set of very specific rules about what priests should wear, alongside the caveat that provided the Parochial Church Council has been consulted, those rules can be completely disregarded and the priest may wear almost whatever they want. For example,

At the Holy Communion the presiding minister shall wear either a surplice or alb with scarf or stole unless the minister has ascertained by consultation with the parochial church council that adopting some other form of dress will be acceptable and will benefit the mission of the Church in the parish. When a stole is worn other customary vestments may be added. The epistoler and gospeller (if any) may wear suprlice or alb to which other customary vestments may be added.

In this example, the canon specifies the form of vestments that should be worn for the presiding minister at a service of Holy Communion, but also says that provided the PCC agree and it is good for the mission of the church, ‘some other form of dress’ is acceptable.

The rules in Canon B8 sits alongside C27, which simply says.

The apparel of a bishop, priest, or deacon shall be suitable to his [Mouse: or her!] office; and, save for purposes of recreation and other justifiable reasons, shall be such as to be a sign and mark of his [Mouse: or her!] holy calling and ministry as well to others as to those committed to his [Mouse: or her!] spiritual charge.

This places some limits on what a priest may wear during their work as a priest. It is broader in application than B8, which specifies vesture during services, since this applies to all time working as a priest, so includes pastoral work and other duties. The only restriction is that the dress should be ‘a sign and mark of his [Mouse: still?] holy calling and ministry’ and that this must be recognisable to ‘others as to those committed to his [Mouse: again?!] spritiual charge’. In other words, non-church goers and people of other faiths should be able to recognise that the priest is a priest. Most take that to mean priests have to wear a dog-collar - the most universally recognised symbol of the priesthood.

If you think this legal formulation is a bit odd - to require something very specific then undercut it with a near cast-iron get-out clause - you would be right. And the reason is that the get-out clause element was a very late addition, introduced in 2017 as an amendment to the historic requirement for clergy to wear vestments.

The motion to amend this canon was brought as a private members motion to General Synod with the justificaiton that it was widely ignored, particularly in evangelical parishes and ‘fresh expressions’, so the law needed to keep up with reality. And Synod agreed.

You may also note that this is an odd way to maintain church law. In this instance, as with others, we have waited until it is sufficiently widely ignored before updating. However, as our story continues, you will find this is not the first time the law on vesture has lagged practice.

Now that the legal position is clear, we can return to the question that started Mouse’s investigations. What is all this about?

The story of clergy vestments goes all the way back to the origins of the Church within a Roman civilisation. In the earliest days of the church, priests did not wear special clothing, but wore the same as everyone else. Which at the time was mostly a form of robes.

In the centuries that followed fashions developed among the population at large, but within the churches traditions began to form around the wearing of robes to mark out priests and bishops. This was done to reflect their special holy calling, particularly during the administration of the eucharist and during other important moments.

These traditions became largely settled by the 12th century. The topic was formalised for the first time at the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, called by Pope Innocent III. This was considered one of the most significant church councils due to the broad representation present as well as the significance of the decision made. It is also notorious for its instigation of regulations against Jewish and Muslim people and a renewed call to crusading.

When it comes to vesture, it was the first time a formal church-wide rule was adopted on clerical clothing:

[Priests] should have a suitable crown and tonsure, and let them diligently apply themselves to the divine services and other good pursuits. Their outer garments should be closed and neither too short nor too long. Let them not indulge in red or green cloths, long sleeves or shoes with embroidery or pointed toes, or in bridles, saddles, breast-plates and spurs that are gilded or have other superfluous ornamentation. Let them not wear cloaks with sleeves at divine services in a church, nor even elsewhere, if they are priests or parsons, unless a justifiable fear requires a change of dress. They are not to wear buckles or belts ornamented with gold or silver, or even rings except for those whose dignity it befits to have them. All bishops should wear outer garments of linen in public and in church, unless they have been monks, in which case they should wear the monastic habit; and let them not wear their cloaks loose in public but rather fastened together behind the neck or across the chest.

The requirements were not as specific as they were to become, but the overall intent was clear. Priests and bishops should dress simply in robes and wear suitable clothing at divine services.

By the time of the reformation clerical vestments had developed further with more elaborate robes for bishops, the near abandonment of the tonsure (shaving of the top of head) and traditional robing for ordinary services. The cope (a kind of decorated cape) was given to priests at their ordination and a range of symbolic meanings were attached to different elements of clerical garb.

This became an issue in England as the newly independent Church sought to find its path as both a reformed and a Catholic Church. The 1549 prayer book made specific requirements for the vesture of priests. For example

The priest that shall execute the holy ministry, shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say: a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope. And where there be many priests, or deacons, there so many shall be ready to help the priest, in the ministracion, as shall be requisite: and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, albes with tunicles.

The idea here was principally that of uniformity rather than any particular theological significance to those specific garments. Similar rubrics were set out for vesture for other services and circumstances and for Bishops in their consecration and duties.

Reformers were not happy with the catholic style of vestments, however, arguing that they are unbiblical and unnecessary ornamentation.

In 1548 John Hooper was nominated as bishop of Gloucester. By now Edward VI was on the throne and the reformation in England was in the hands of its most zealous advocates. Hooper had spent time in Zurich with the Calvinists leading the reformation there and became friends with Heinrich Bullinger and Martin Bucer in particular. Despite encouragement from leading reformers, including Cranmer, he refused to be consecrated as this required the wearing of a surplice and cope.

They all seemed to agree that the matter was not theologically significant, but church rules required the robes and Hooper refused to wear them on the basis that people may be misled into believing that the minister was a mediator who stood in their place at communion, which would imperil their souls. In the debate became a tussle over ecclesiastical authority. Hooper resisted, but under huge pressure (include being put under house arrest) and under encouragement from Bullinger, Cranmer, Calvin and others that the issue was simply not worth the trouble, Hooper relented and was consecrated in 1551 and later preached in the required robes before the king.

The following year the new 1552 prayer book was adopted which significantly simplified the rules.

And here is to be noted, that the minister at the time of the Communion and all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope: but being archbishop or bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only.

This removed the issue that Hooper fought over, but the issue remained controversial and reforms reversed by Mary before Elizabeth I found the middle way. Vesture was concluded to be in a simplified form from that which existed before the reformation. After some to and fro it landed in the 1662 prayer book which we know and love.

As Elizabeth I sought to do in many areas of church life, she found a middle way and the 1559 prayer book said,

The Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in the accustomed Place of the Church, Chapel, or Chancel; except it shall be otherwise determined by the Ordinary of the Place. And the Chancels shalt remain as they have done in times past. And here is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all Times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth [1549].

This formulation leaves some room for interpretation, no doubt intentionally so. Within the Church of England, this came to a head in the late 19th century as the Anglo-Catholic revival began re-introducing Catholic style rituals and ornaments into the Church. This included more elaborate vestments, including highly decorated chasubles and copes, which had not been in use since the reformation. A series of court cases settled the matter, the final one in 1877 which appeared to settle the matter, essentially concluding that elaborate vestments are not permitted.

In 1904 the Prime Minister Balfour established a Royal Commission on clergy discipline following controversy around 'ritualism' in the church. The report in 1 906 raised the prospect of continued legal ambiguity and questioned the 1877 judgement. It also set out evidence that vesture rules were 'seldom followed', including the wearing of stoles, which was not permitted.

The 1604 Canons were almost untouched until the 1960s when they were replaced wholesale. When it came to the rules on vesture, there was some controversy. Proposals were put forward to regularise common practice and remove potential legal ambiguity. When introducing the measure in the House of Lords, the Bishop of London argued that

whatever be the proper interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric in the Acts of Uniformity of 1558 and 1662, there is no doubt that the present practice of the vast majority of the clergy of the Church of England is at one point or another at variance with the Privy Council judgment. In particular, the wearing of a stole, which is not authorised by any interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric, is the practice in the great majority of parish churches—probably in something like 90 per cent.

Evangelicals felt that this would permit the reintroduction of vestments which had not been legal since before the reformation, so an organised campaign was mounted to resist the proposals, including an organised letter writing campaign to MPs. Nevertheless, the measure passed and practice 'on the ground' remained largely unchanged.

And this is where the Church of England largely remained until 2017.

The story tells us that there are some genuine issues involved. The consensus has always been that priests and bishops should wear clothing that makes them identifiable to those outside the church and clothing that marks out their calling while conducting divine services. However, these are symbolic and pastoral issues rather than theological issues per se.

It is understandable that some may consider robes and vestments to be outdated and to be concerned that those outside the church may be put off by the appearance of a priest in a strange outfit. On the other hand, to dispose of these garments could give the impression that there is no such thing as a holy calling or a priestly ministry and that divine services are nothing more than public gatherings for mutual support and a bit of fun singing together. In order to reduce the appearance of strangeness, we give the impression of ordinariness, which may well be worse.

We have seen the phenomena recently of growth in Cathedral worship and a revival of liturgical practices not just within the Anglican Church but more widely. There seems to have been a realisation that practices that have served the Church for two thousand years catering worshipers on the gospels and on Christ may have some merit after all. Perhaps vesture will similarly be an area where modernising instincts will take us so far down the road before at least some travellers hit reverse.

Image generated using Microsoft Designer AI

What is the Church of England’s doctrine?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:30:00 +0000

There has been lots of talk recently about doctrine. Whether it is being changed. What it is. Whether it can be changed. What our priests and bishops have sworn to uphold. Mouse will not be wading into the muddy waters of any particular issues of doctrine but thought it would be helpful to set the context for what we mean by doctrine in the Church of England. And whether we actually have any.

The first thing to note is that this is not a new question. The Church of England is unique in its history and development, which means that it lacks a formalised and codified body of doctrine. Its history, forged through the violent times of the 16th century and swinging between reformers and Catholics meant that the Church was designed from the outset to accommodate a range of beliefs, but within a framework which holds them together. As a result, the question of exactly what our doctrine is and should be has been around as long as the Church itself and has been formally examined by the Church’s central authorities on several occasions.

The starting point for an attempt to examine doctrine in the Church of England is the definition given in the Canons. Specifically, Canon A5 says:

The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

Let’s break that down.

The first statement is not an expression of what the church’s doctrine is, but a statement about the nature of its doctrine. It is also unhelpfully vague. Being grounded in the holy scriptures is, of course, important but there are many ways to read the Bible and what does it mean to be grounded in it?

Similarly, the ancient fathers and Councils said a lot, but Canon A5 says that our doctrine is grounded in such teachings as are agreeable to the scriptures, so again we have to scratch our heads to work out what that might mean in practice. Which teachings of the ancient fathers and Councils are agreeable to the scriptures and which are not?

The second part of the Canon is more illuminating. Our doctrine ‘is to be found in’ the 39 Articles, BCP and the Ordinal. Well, those are more specific documents we can read and digest. They also contain a number of the historic creeds, so here we have something concrete. Don’t we?

The 39 Articles is as close to a foundational document for the Church of England as we have and was finalised in 1571. The Articles that we know and love today started life as a list of 10 articles in 1536 as the first doctrinal statement from the English bishops after the split with Rome, attempting to forge a path between those who wanted the English church to essentially be Roman Catholic but without the Pope and those who wanted a full blooded Protestant reformation. They included such statements as declaring that praying to the saints is permitted, icons may be used but not worshipped and that justification is by faith, but good works are also still necessary.

Image created using Microsoft Designer AI

Over time these articles were refined, expanded, cut down again and expanded again as the church went through the turbulent reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and a Catholic revival under Mary I, before the final list was completed following Elizabeth I’s excommunication by Pope Pius V in 1570.

And all that history means that it is a document of its time and was much debated and revised in the years leading up to the 1571 version. It is designed to address specific controversies and issues at the time of the English Reformation as Elizabeth I sought to unify the Church of England and put the bloody recent past behind her. The principal concern was to establish the points of differentiation between the Catholic Church and the more radically reformed Anabaptists. Consequently, the doctrine of the Church of England has been said to be that of the Catholic Church before the reformation with the changes made by the 39 Articles and BCP added on top.

There is a healthy debate as to whether the Articles should be considered doctrine or law. In essence, they are both, formed of short statements of intent rather than long theological exposition.

If you found someone in the street and handed them a copy of the 39 Articles, telling them this is the foundation of the doctrine of the Church of England they would look at you with a very odd look.

It contains declarations about the rights to private property and occasional slams of the Anabaptists and ‘popish’ doctrines. Statements about whether you are OK to swear an oath when a magistrate requests you to. Statements about the power of civil magistrates. Other articles deal with controversies of the time - whether purgatory exists (nope) and whether the sacraments are valid if the priest who administers them is evil (yep).

The purpose was to codify the issues that needed to be codified at the time. They are certainly not a comprehensive theological position, although they do point to critical positions on a number of issues. Few would argue that issues like the existence of purgatory are key issues for the Church of England, whil a number of central theological topics are absent from the articles, since they were not major controversies at the time.

To add to the confusion, Article 35 says:

The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.

The Homilies are two books of sermons designed to be read in churches at a time when preaching licences were scarce to meet the concern about a lack of preaching of the Word.

So does that mean that two books of sermons assembled during the time of Edward VI and Elizabeth I are also the formal doctrine of the Church of England? Or can we ignore them due to the comment that they are ‘necessary for these times’? They are also documents of their time, including some moments of uncomfortable reading, such as:

For the woman is a weake creature, not inbued with like strength and constancie of minde, therefore they be the sooner disquieted, and they be the more prone to all weake affections & dispositions of mind, more then men bee, & lighter they bee, and more vaine in their fantasies & opinions.

Other homilies include ‘Against Idleness’, ‘Against excesse of apparel [fancy clothes]’ and ‘Against gluttony and drunkenness’, which are all very much of their time and most would consider not suitable for use in public worship today.

With this doctrinal background a series of theological controversies began to emerge in the early part of the 20th century which could not easily be resolved. In response the Archbishops of Canterbury and York created a Doctrine Commission in 1922, latterly under William Temple, with the remit to pull together the essential doctrines that carry universal agreement within the Church of England. The intent was not to create a definitive corpus of doctrine that carried universal agreement but to find a way to resolve and bring together theological differences that were hot topics at the time. Their remit was:

To consider the nature and grounds of Christian doctrine with a view to demonstrating the extent of existing agreement within the Church of England and with a view to investigating how far it is possible to remove or dminish existing differences.

The Commission took 16 years to report, indicating the scale of the challenge. Their summary, Doctrine in the Church of England published in 1938, is not a bad effort at all. Even so, the remit of the Commission fell short of producing an authoritative statement even on the topics in scope, but was to provide a report for further consideration by the Bishops. As far as Mouse can tell, the Bishops essentially did nothing with the report other than note its existence. Nevertheless, for students of doctrine in the good old CofE, Mouse commends it for use.

The period of the Commission’s work coincided with a major attempt to revise the 1662 prayer book with the introduction of a new version - potentially the most significant doctrinal change in centuries. This was largely an attempt by Anglo-Catholics to introduce more freedom for Anglo-Catholic liturgical practices alongside the traditional Anglican forms. A draft was made in 1923 and after various revisions was passed by the Church of England’s Convocations and Church Assembly. However, this was a time before General Synod, so changes to Church law required Parliamentary approval and Parliament voted down the new prayer book in 1928, due to concerns over the reservation of the sacrament amongst other issues, and opposition from Evangelicals.

The 1938 Doctrine Commission report considered the sources of doctrine described in Canon A5 and observed that they were a 16th-century formulation never intended to form the fundamental doctrine of the church in isolation but to address the specific issues the church was facing at the time. It helpfully had this to say about their application today:

These formularies should not be held to prejudge questions which have arisen since their formulation or problems which have been modified by fresh knowledge or fresh conceptions. Nevertheless, If an Anglican theologian thinks a particular formulary not wholly adequate, he has a special obligation to preserve whatever truth that formulary was trying to secure, and to see to it that any statement he puts forward as more adequate does in fact secure this.

So they concluded that these historic Anglican formularies are important and helpful, but we might have learned something new since the 16th-century and new theological questions have arisen that they do not address. The rest of the document (almost 250 pages worth) walks through the latest consensus positions as they were understood at the time.

Indeed the 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer both acknowledge the potential for development. Article 34 states:

it is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly alike, for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed of countries, times and man’s manners.

Similarly, the preface to the BCP states:

Every particular or national Church, has authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority.

This has broadly been taken to mean that the Church does indeed have authority to change its rites and ceremonies, which by nature of the fact that they are contained within the Book of Common Prayer and 39 Articles means alter doctrine, but must do so through a legal process either by Act of Parliament or more recently by General Synod using its legislative powers and that such changes should never be contrary to scripture or the historic formularies (i.e. creeds and 39 Articles).

The Doctrine Commission addressed this issue with the 39 Articles head-on in its 1968 report, ‘Subscription and Assent to the 39 Articles’. Increasing numbers of priests were finding the nature of assent required to historical forms of words difficult to uphold. The Commission considered whether the church should update the 39 Articles so that they are a better articulation of the church’s doctrine or if it was better to leave them as they are with caveats in how we use them. They plumped for the latter path. Certainly an easier route, but one that creates room for further ambiguity.

The Commission also address the interpretations of the Church’s historic creeds. These are much clearer statements of belief, which are asserted today in Church of England churches every week, so surely these provide a solid foundation for our doctrine?

Well, the Commission concluded that we should consider the statements within the creeds to be ‘true’ but that this truth could be considered a spiritual ‘symbolic’ truth and not necessarily a historical factual truth.

It is not therefore of necessity illegitimate to accept and affirm particular clauses of the Creeds while understanding them in this symbolic sense.

The Commission was, in essence, concluding that if we require priests to assent to doctrine, they needed sufficient wiggle room to allow for interpretation in good conscience.

Which raises the interesting question of the legal status of Church of England doctrine. Unlike the Catholic Church which has a more clearly defined corpus of authoritative doctrinal statements made as dogma by the magisterium of the Church, an ecclesiastical lawyer has some work to do when seeking legal clarity.

The legal position in this area was clarified somewhat under the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974. This measure was passed as a result of controversies at the time between those who wished to preserve the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and those who wished to use more modern language and forms of service.

The measure puts limits on what changes General Synod can and cannot make. In the section designed to ensure a preservation of the 1662 BCP the measure states that changes permissible “shall be such as in the opinion of the General Synod is neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.”

The 1974 measure included a definition of the doctrine of the Church of England as set out in Canon A5 and also stated that documents such as those from the Doctrine Commission, Lambeth Conference or House of Bishops have ‘persuasive authority’ such that an ecclesiastical court may consider them should the need arise. These documents fall short of forming the Church’s doctrine, however.

As a result, the 1974 measure created a new function for General Synod as the ultimate doctrinal arbiters of what can and cannot be changed. Of what is doctrine, a departure from it and what is an essential matter. While any changes must be proposed by the Bishops, nothing can be done without Synod’s consent and whatever they consent to change, based on their judgement that it is not contrary to scripture on an essential matter, then it is so. It also created the requirement that such changes to forms of service be approved with a two-thirds majority in each house of General Synod where changes to Canons are required.

Since then, the Doctrine Commission has prepared a variety of reports and has continued to be formed periodically. The Commission has been replaced more recently by the Faith and Order Commission, a standing group producing theological works for General Synod.

Perhaps the most significant report in relation to the Church’s doctrine was the 1981 document Believing in the Church in a chapter partly authored by an up-and-coming young theologian called Tom Wright entitled ‘Where is our doctrine to be found?’.

The report argued that the Church has its doctrine in three places. Doctrine as declared in its formularies, doctrine as implicit in the liturgical and worship practices of the church and doctrine as believed but not explicitly stated - the mind of the church.

Doctrine declared refers to explicit statements of belief, which is the focus of this post. Doctrine refers to 'the way of doing things and the values they attach'. The report argues that these beliefs are most potent than doctrine declared as they seep into the underlying assumptions we all have about the basis of our faith, but are less precise and rarely explicitly discussed. Quoting Bishop Montefiore, they argue that:

Dogmas are written in the language and the thought forms of the age that defined them ... every formulation of faith is "imperfect, incomplete, partial and fragmentary", Usually they have polemical bias; they are responses to questions which may be framed very differently today. But beliefs that are expressed only by implication are less exposed to incredulity or correction and, on the contrary, are invested with the mystique of custom and ceremony ...

Doctrine 'difussed' is the term used for doctrine captured only in the widespread beliefs of the church. These are again even nearer the core of our collective belief system, reflecting the broad constituency of the Church of England, such as belief in a good God, a personal God and a 'Christian God'.

This report addressed the status of the 39 Articles observing that the ‘brevity and latitude’ of the Articles was:

itself a point of theological substance. It is saying, by implication, that there are several widely debated theological issues on which a loyal Anglican is not enjoined to take up a particular stance. It implicitly sets out categories of primary and secondary truths.

The inclusion of a section on ‘doctrine as believed’ was perhaps the most significant. In most of the historic theological disputes within the Church, there were few tangible theological threads which could be grasped from ‘doctrine as declared’ in our formularies, but where where many people felt strongly. In other words, where doctrine as believed began to splinter.

The 1981 report concluded that Church of England doctrine can be found first in Scripture then in a kind of pyramid below that in ever-expanding formulations, from the 39 Articles and Creeds, the BCP then a less clear mix of more detailed but less authoritative sources, seeking to expand and explain those higher sources for more practical purposes.

So where does this leave us when attempting to decipher what the doctrine of the church is on any particular matter? If we ask the question, “what is the Church of England’s doctrine on the topic of …?” where can we find the answer?

Canon A5 tells us that we can rely on the 39 Articles and the BCP, but in many instances that is unlikely to directly answer the question. Further, the Doctrine Commission told us that we might have learned some new things since the 16th century so they might need updating, paying due regard to the weighty authority those formularies carry. We have thousands of pages of reports from Doctrine Commissions, the Faith and Order Commission, the Lambeth Conference and the House of Bishops setting out teaching on almost every subject conceivable, but the weight that those documents carry varies and they should not be considered sources of doctrine in their own right. Or we could simply ask what we think the principal body of the Church believes.

And from that, we must form our own view. In a nutshell, that is the Anglican position.

It is a position which leaves some tensions, particularly when the question of legality is raised.

Canon C15 sets out the oath priests must make as they are ordained in this context:

[The Church of England] professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?

This places a legal duty on priests to assent to these doctrinal statements, but both the nature of that assent and the flexibility in the doctrinal statements themselves means that there is a reasonable degree of latitude in what the nature of that assent means in practice. They are asked to be loyal to the inheritance of faith as their ‘inspiration and guidance under God’ to bring the grace and trust of Christ to this generation. There is plenty of room for interpretation in exactly how this inheritance of faith will inspire and guide.

There is a theoretical possibility for members of the clergy to be pursued through the ecclesiastical courts for heresy should they publicly advocate doctrine contrary to that of the Church, however, this is complex for many reasons, and the priest would have to be expounding views that are clearly contrary to essential matters and as a point of fact, such action has not happened for a very long time.

Bishops have an additional duty when it comes to upholding doctrine. They have a duty under the Canons to ‘uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions.’

In 1986 the House of Bishops issued a statement on what this means and concluded that it as well as their duty to ‘guard’ they should be ‘guardians of the process of exploration as well as of received truths’. They added that bishops ‘may properly enter into questioning on matters of belief’ although a bishop should ‘refrain himself from statements contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England’.

All that puts the Bishops in a tricky spot, given the limitations on nailing down exactly what the doctrine of the church actually is in many areas. However, there is a subtle distinction at play between developing and deepening our doctrinal understanding and changing or contradicting it. The concern of the Bishop’s 1986 statement was about beliefs that are ‘contrary to’ the church’s doctrine, not beliefs that expand or develop our doctrine, in light of all we have said about the nature and sources of our doctrine.

The Catholic Church has a similar understanding that Dogma cannot be changed, but it can be expanded upon and further developed. In this regard, to suggest that a previous element of doctrine was outright incorrect is not possible, but to further develop it, expand it, and add new dimensions to it is part of the natural development of doctrine.

To this end, talk of ‘changing doctrine’ needs to work out which side of that line we are discussing. Are we contradicting established doctrine, or are we further exploring and developing what was previously understood? And further, are we discussing doctrine in the sense of core beliefs (akin to Catholic dogma) or in the sense of all teachings and opinions of the church on theological, moral and spiritual matters? We hold these wider theological views more lightly. And is that doctrine declared, implicit or believed doctrine, in line with the 1981 Doctrine Commission distinction?

The legal position of the Church’s doctrine has also been under the microscope recently in secular courts. Church law is established in its Canons, alongside a hugely complex range of other legislative measures and case law. The Canons themselves are a body of law, however, there is clearly a relationship between the requirements of the Canons and the doctrines they are seeking to embed in law.

The current set of Canons largely originates from a total revision promulgated in 1969. Prior to that, Canon law had been almost entirely unchanged for over 350 years from the 1604 Canons. In contrast to the previous period of canonical stability, since 1969 the Canons have been under almost constant revision. This period coincides with the establishment of General Synod in 1970, which assumed the role of ultimate legislative assembly, and is the only body other than Parliament which can pass primary legislation. The Church of England’s website lists 48 occasions on which dozens of Canons have been amended since 1969.

Occasionally Church of England doctrine also becomes the subject of the secular courts. Equalities legislation passed by successive governments includes provision for religious organisations to hold policies which reflect their religious beliefs, giving exemptions to laws which would otherwise require equal treatment on the basis of religion.

A recent case involving an employment law tribunal faced these questions and dealt with the issue of how to define the doctrines of a religion under secular law compared with how a faith itself may define its doctrine, concluding, ‘the "doctrines" of the religion [in secular law] must refer to the teachings or beliefs of that religion, not to what might more narrowly be understood by "doctrine" within a specific religious community such as the Church of England.’

This is a fascinating conclusion, in essence saying that in secular law ‘doctrine’ refers to all teachings and beliefs of a faith, while the faith itself may make a distinction between a narrower set of beliefs which it considers doctrine (core) and a wider set of teachings and beliefs that it holds to more lightly. This is the case for all religions and aligns with the Catholic approach to dogma as well as the Church of England definition in the Canons. It also recognised that a secular court, ‘cannot be expected to enter into theological debate to determine those doctrines for itself.’ Nevertheless, for the purposes of law, it must conclude.

When the court then attempted to work out what this doctrine was, the court looked at the Canons, concluding that they must be considered a representation of the Church’s beliefs, and the related statements from the House of Bishops and concluded that this can fairly be considered the doctrine of the church under the law. This seems an entirely fair way for the court to make its determinations but adds another layer of complexity when considering doctrine within the church and gives additional importance to doctrinal statements that we have previously said would not be expected to form core doctrine of the church. We now have to consider not only the theological implications but also the implications in secular law.

Mouse’s reflection is that this means we should be very careful when talking about the doctrine of the Church. Those who would like the clarity and certainty of Catholic Dogma will not find it in the Church of England. However, it would be wrong to claim that there is nothing there - on the contrary, there is a wealth of historical formularies and teachings down the ages. It would be foolishness in the extreme to fail to get to grips with this before daring to propose developments or innovations.

Despite that wealth of writing and teaching, the quantity which can be considered authoritative official church doctrine is surprisingly small, however, with quite a bit of wriggle room for interpretation. For the most part, we have varying levels of authoritative teachings from which we continue to explore.

What that tells us is that our doctrine has evolved and will continue to develop. To carve our doctrine in stone tablets, either as articulated in 1571 or 1938, would be to fail in our responsibility to keep reading the scriptures, keep listening to the Holy Spirit, keep discussing what we are learning and do so in the unity of one church, determined to follow Christ above all else.

Perhaps a helpful conclusion is the one reached by John Frith writing on the Eucharist. He argued that it was not doctrine that saves, but Christ. He argued that those with theological differences should not divide over them but unite in Christ:

First, we must all acknowledge that it is non article of our faith which can save us, neither which we are bound to believe under the pain of eternal damnation: for if I should believe that his very natural body, both flesh and blood, were materially in the bread and wine, that should not save me, seeing many believe that, and receive it to their damnation. For it is not his presence in the bread that can save me, but his presence in my heart through faith in his blood, which hath washed out my sins and pacified the Father’s wrath towards me … And so ought neither part to despise the other, for each seeketh the glory of God, and the true understanding of Scripture.

Amen