Aside from the abuses involved (which are obviously inexcusable), is there a place for the church to seek to convert people who are likely to occupy positions of power and influence in the future, in the hope that their faith would guide their use of power? That's obviously a long way from what actually happened in terms of packing the hierarchy via the old boys network but I wonder if there is a place for saying "we can't just now fix the fact that the country's leaders are drawn from this narrow pool, so we should seek to ensure that they lead well". I suppose part of the problem is that if you succeed in moulding these better leaders you reduce the chances of them occupying leadership positions.
That all depends on who is drawing up the criteria for "good" leadership, and what their models are.
Aside from the abuses involved (which are obviously inexcusable), is there a place for the church to seek to convert people who are likely to occupy positions of power and influence in the future, in the hope that their faith would guide their use of power? That's obviously a long way from what actually happened in terms of packing the hierarchy via the old boys network but I wonder if there is a place for saying "we can't just now fix the fact that the country's leaders are drawn from this narrow pool, so we should seek to ensure that they lead well". I suppose part of the problem is that if you succeed in moulding these better leaders you reduce the chances of them occupying leadership positions.
That all depends on who is drawing up the criteria for "good" leadership, and what their models are.
Aside from the abuses involved (which are obviously inexcusable), is there a place for the church to seek to convert people who are likely to occupy positions of power and influence in the future, in the hope that their faith would guide their use of power? That's obviously a long way from what actually happened in terms of packing the hierarchy via the old boys network but I wonder if there is a place for saying "we can't just now fix the fact that the country's leaders are drawn from this narrow pool, so we should seek to ensure that they lead well". I suppose part of the problem is that if you succeed in moulding these better leaders you reduce the chances of them occupying leadership positions.
I suppose the example of Zacchaeus is a kind of pattern. A corrupt tool of an oppressive imperialist (but highly successful) power trying to put right some abuses of the system. It's maybe too individualistic to work in a broader sense, but in principle it showed Jesus drawing 'power' into his transforming circle for the betterment of the people. That even corrupt officialdom wasn't beyond redemption.
For our own times, arguably a certain amount of political careerism - a certain type of professional politician - has done damage to how politics works in our country. There was always a certain amount of prestige in going into politics. But that was based on the privilege of being at the heart of democratic power. But in recent decades, for so many, it appears to be a deliberate choice for the fulfilment of personal ambition irrespective of suitability or principles, or for enriching oneself. I think there are still people who go into politics hoping to do good, to change things for the better. But these days, it doesn't seem to be the cream that floats to the top.
Aside from the abuses involved (which are obviously inexcusable), is there a place for the church to seek to convert people who are likely to occupy positions of power and influence in the future, in the hope that their faith would guide their use of power? That's obviously a long way from what actually happened in terms of packing the hierarchy via the old boys network but I wonder if there is a place for saying "we can't just now fix the fact that the country's leaders are drawn from this narrow pool, so we should seek to ensure that they lead well". I suppose part of the problem is that if you succeed in moulding these better leaders you reduce the chances of them occupying leadership positions.
I suppose the example of Zacchaeus is a kind of pattern. A corrupt tool of an oppressive imperialist (but highly successful) power trying to put right some abuses of the system. It's maybe too individualistic to work in a broader sense, but in principle it showed Jesus drawing 'power' into his transforming circle for the betterment of the people. That even corrupt officialdom wasn't beyond redemption.
For our own times, arguably a certain amount of political careerism - a certain type of professional politician - has done damage to how politics works in our country. There was always a certain amount of prestige in going into politics. But that was based on the privilege of being at the heart of democratic power. But in recent decades, for so many, it appears to be a deliberate choice for the fulfilment of personal ambition irrespective of suitability or principles, or for enriching oneself. I think there are still people who go into politics hoping to do good, to change things for the better. But these days, it doesn't seem to be the cream that floats to the top.
My son has been working as an advisor to a UK minister.
He has vowed never to work with a politician again.
Ministers are parachuted into jobs with no knowledge at all of the area they are meant to be running. Its like working with entitled idiots.
Coincidentally I happen to be reading 'Sybil' by Disraeli. It sounds like humans are still human and, nearly 200 years later, ursine defectation is still a noted feature of areas of arboricultural profusion
At the moment, it IS the cathedral for me. Some cathedrals are parish churches too, but also many cathedrals have the resources to put on several different services each week rather than - often - just the one in a small parish church. They can dare to be experimental as well as very traditional. I'm very lucky these days in that a cathedral is within easy reach, compared with years ago when I lived somewhere else. So maybe it's partly novelty value, but an opportunity I cherish at least for now.
I know you've had bad experiences of the CofE, ExclamationMark and I don't doubt that as a Baptist minister you've received short shrift from some up-themselves Anglican clergy.
I also get the distinct impression that you have a visceral aversion to public schoolboys, the royal family and fol de rol, but steady on ...
I'm sure if you set up your own independent church (conventical ) or planted a new Baptist church it would all be wonderful and marvelous and beyond reproach.
On the Iwerne thing, I agree with you that there is something additionally and especially distasteful about it given its proximity to the corridors of power and I'm not a fan of the public school system either - even though I have plenty of friends who went to them.
There is a particularly problematic context to all this, given the CofE's position as the Established Church and so on. Granted.
But you seem to expecting a uniformity of belief and practice across the Anglican spectrum when that doesn't exist anywhere else within Protestantism* either from what I can see - it's certainly not there among Baptists.
Why should anyone trust the Baptists when individual congregations can believe what they like and there is no overall consensus?
That's a rhetorical question, of course.
*And yes, I know there are those who'd argue that the CofE isn't Protestant. The Iwerne-ites wouldn't of course.
Thanks GG - yep I sure have some aversions, born of experience but I realise irl I have to reel it in a bit. It's not a blanket rejection but a concern over those visible areas of (inappropriate influence) which may or may not mask other influences. I have to say that I'm annoyed with myself that, having been in the same circles as Fletcher some years ago, I am only just now realising that some of us (the drones) were being tolerated at best. There was a whole culture going on within the local church from which some were deliberately excluded.
I don't think I'd do any good at planting a church - it was a tongue in cheek comment. It would be far from beyond reproach and marvellous.
I see your point about trusting denominations and I don't have a corner to fight. I just find it hard when in a hierarchical non-congregational societal church, that there's little consistency to guidance.
It's a real issue for me now as I look forward to possible the last big life change. I'd like to get it as right as possible.
Trust your instincts, and regard the denominational label as irreleveant. That's how I deal with the C of E anyway, and I was confirmed into it 30 years ago and have been going as a more or less functioning adult ever since. In a denomination whose only point of unity is its pensions board, you will see all varieties of practice and malpractice. I'm not sure if that is fair on the other denominations, but it's what I observe.
ETA: the C of E has tribes, but even those tribes are pretty fissiporous. On reflection, the other thing it does is provide a career structure, but again that is for its clergy. Most lay people don't really engage beyond our congregations, which accounts for the state of Synod and a lot of what we are seeing re. LLF.
We are probably going to go independent as a congregation if we survive. As an FE we're assumed to be near enough non-Eucharistic and lay led. That won't work. So arguably because we're more Anglican in our sacramentalism than the other FEs we may have to become non-Anglican.
Then whoever we appoint gets the necessary spell slots for Consecrate Elements.
I don't have first hand experience of Fresh Expressions but I know of a few which have gone belly-up and have never been mentioned or acknowledged ever again in some kind of chilling Orwellian silence pact.
Whatever direction yours takes, as far as the institution of the CoE goes, the waters will settle and it will be as if it had never been ...
I started this thread to ponder over the possible ecclesial directions and destinations of those Anglicans who might be disillusioned over the LLF issue but who may be too sacramental in their approach to settle easily into non-conformist settings.
It's broadened out from that.
On ExclamationMark's big life change move, far be it from me to speculate but I have no doubt that someone of his evident skills and ability would find some outlet for his talents where he settles - even if it's not immediately obvious at first.
I'm not disparaging church involvement or focus in any way but I tend to think that a Kingdom rather than a primarily 'churchdom' focus is one which can offer broader scope for effectiveness and fulfilment - not that I exemplify that in any way worthy of emulation.
Comments
That all depends on who is drawing up the criteria for "good" leadership, and what their models are.
True.
It is much, much easier to define and determine bad leadership than good.
I suppose the example of Zacchaeus is a kind of pattern. A corrupt tool of an oppressive imperialist (but highly successful) power trying to put right some abuses of the system. It's maybe too individualistic to work in a broader sense, but in principle it showed Jesus drawing 'power' into his transforming circle for the betterment of the people. That even corrupt officialdom wasn't beyond redemption.
For our own times, arguably a certain amount of political careerism - a certain type of professional politician - has done damage to how politics works in our country. There was always a certain amount of prestige in going into politics. But that was based on the privilege of being at the heart of democratic power. But in recent decades, for so many, it appears to be a deliberate choice for the fulfilment of personal ambition irrespective of suitability or principles, or for enriching oneself. I think there are still people who go into politics hoping to do good, to change things for the better. But these days, it doesn't seem to be the cream that floats to the top.
Like churches, it does tend to attract oddballs though ...
My son has been working as an advisor to a UK minister.
He has vowed never to work with a politician again.
Ministers are parachuted into jobs with no knowledge at all of the area they are meant to be running. Its like working with entitled idiots.
Thanks GG - yep I sure have some aversions, born of experience but I realise irl I have to reel it in a bit. It's not a blanket rejection but a concern over those visible areas of (inappropriate influence) which may or may not mask other influences. I have to say that I'm annoyed with myself that, having been in the same circles as Fletcher some years ago, I am only just now realising that some of us (the drones) were being tolerated at best. There was a whole culture going on within the local church from which some were deliberately excluded.
I don't think I'd do any good at planting a church - it was a tongue in cheek comment. It would be far from beyond reproach and marvellous.
I see your point about trusting denominations and I don't have a corner to fight. I just find it hard when in a hierarchical non-congregational societal church, that there's little consistency to guidance.
It's a real issue for me now as I look forward to possible the last big life change. I'd like to get it as right as possible.
ETA: the C of E has tribes, but even those tribes are pretty fissiporous. On reflection, the other thing it does is provide a career structure, but again that is for its clergy. Most lay people don't really engage beyond our congregations, which accounts for the state of Synod and a lot of what we are seeing re. LLF.
Then whoever we appoint gets the necessary spell slots for Consecrate Elements.
I don't have first hand experience of Fresh Expressions but I know of a few which have gone belly-up and have never been mentioned or acknowledged ever again in some kind of chilling Orwellian silence pact.
Whatever direction yours takes, as far as the institution of the CoE goes, the waters will settle and it will be as if it had never been ...
I started this thread to ponder over the possible ecclesial directions and destinations of those Anglicans who might be disillusioned over the LLF issue but who may be too sacramental in their approach to settle easily into non-conformist settings.
It's broadened out from that.
On ExclamationMark's big life change move, far be it from me to speculate but I have no doubt that someone of his evident skills and ability would find some outlet for his talents where he settles - even if it's not immediately obvious at first.
I'm not disparaging church involvement or focus in any way but I tend to think that a Kingdom rather than a primarily 'churchdom' focus is one which can offer broader scope for effectiveness and fulfilment - not that I exemplify that in any way worthy of emulation.