tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post6544835977744703436..comments2023-10-31T14:44:05.872+00:00Comments on Not the same stream: And always keep a-hold of Nurse ...Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-61911695754996754452010-10-25T19:57:44.620+01:002010-10-25T19:57:44.620+01:00JCF - answer part 2:
A)the 1927/28 conflict. The...JCF - answer part 2:<br /><br />A)the 1927/28 conflict. There had been an extensive consultation process and the proposed book had overwhelming assent in the Church Assembly. But it didn't suit the harder line protestant evangelicals (the catholic party were dominant at the time). The evangelicals mounted a public campaign which swayed parliament. <br /><br />B) 1960s - 1970s. again the relationship between church and state was being altered, this time to the church's benefit. The key change was that parliament allowed the church to carve out space in which it made its own decisions and didn't have to refer every detail to parliament. Some MPs complained in 1974 that they had been conned because the discretion allowed to the church was only meant to be temporary (the MPs were right, they had been conned). But they were a minority, most MPs were happy to hand over power and no longer wanted to control the church.<br /><br />The state continues to hang on to many powers but little by little it steadily cedes them to the church.<br /><br />The key power (and one which the Covenant will exacerbate) is the appointment of bishops. Here the government (not parliament) holds the power and they are only letting go one finger at a time.<br /><br />You understand that so is so brief as to be a travesty, but I hope it helps.Paul Bagshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-14478353658192255972010-10-25T19:56:32.834+01:002010-10-25T19:56:32.834+01:00JCF,
Now's that a more difficult question. T...JCF,<br /><br />Now's that a more difficult question. The long history was that the Church has been governed by statute since its beginning with courts interpreting and enforcing those laws. Every aspect of the government of the church went through Parliament. <br /><br />The church liked this - they were the spiritual dimension of the state and integral, if junior, in the constitution. The CofE was the 'national' church in several meanings. (You can imagine what this looked like to Catholics and Dissenters.)<br /><br />From the 1850s / 1860s the Convocations (gatherings of clergy) were restarted (they had been shut down in 1717, which is another story). This was the beginning of a programme for church members to govern themselves (and therefore implicitly acknowledging the CofE was now one denomination amongst many rather than the <i>the</i> church from which the rest dissented). <br /><br />Lay people had a formal role in the government of the church from 1919 - but parliament continued to think of itself as guardian of the rights of the laity against any incursion by the clergy.<br /><br />A)the 1927/28 conflict. There had been an extensive consultation process and the proposed book had overwhelming assent in the Church Assembly. But it didn't suit the harder line protestant evangelicals (the catholic party were dominant at the time). The evangelicals mounted a public campaign which swayed parliament. <br /><br />B) 1960s - 1970s. again the relationship between church and state was being altered, this time to the church's benefit. The key change was that parliament allowed the church to carve out space in which it made its own decisions and didn't have to refer every detail to parliament. Some MPs complained in 1974 that they had been conned because the discretion allowed to the church was only meant to be temporary (the MPs were right, they had been conned). But they were a minority, most MPs were happy to hand over power and no longer wanted to control the church.<br /><br />The state continues to hang on to many powers but little by little it steadily cedes them to the church.<br /><br />The key power (and one which the Covenant will exacerbate) is the appointment of bishops. Here the government (not parliament) holds the power and they are only letting go one finger at a time.<br /><br />You understand that so is so brief as to be a travesty, but I hope it helps.Paul Bagshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-86954875752233331332010-10-24T23:44:48.029+01:002010-10-24T23:44:48.029+01:00Hallo, Ignorant Yank here---
Could you explain to...Hallo, Ignorant Yank here---<br /><br />Could you explain to me (briefly) *WHY* Parliament objected to BCP/Biblical revisions? Thanks!JCFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-6362134903994108252010-10-24T19:53:13.833+01:002010-10-24T19:53:13.833+01:00And all this time we benighted American Episcopali...And all this time we benighted American Episcopalians thought that being Anglican was a Good Thing.WSJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09712152737422347034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-72397625540630270662010-10-24T13:25:05.334+01:002010-10-24T13:25:05.334+01:00This is a good point. A number of us have wondered...This is a good point. A number of us have wondered whether to sign up to a binding Covenant and cede powers to a 'foreign' oversight might not be unconstitutional for the Church of England?<br /><br />In any case the Covenant is a 'knee-jerk' reaction to deal with a crisis in the Communion - one of many over the years that have otherwise been resolved, albeit in a messy way. <br /><br />The problem is that the present Covenantal proposals will lock us into a position of no change forever. They will give enormous power to a small group, allow other Provinces to interfere in geographical areas that are not their own, change the Communion into a Lutheran type of confessional Church and formalise a probable three-way schism.<br /><br />The North Americans won't sign up. The schismatics and their Equatorial African/South East Asia supporters can't sign up and the rest will sign up out of resignation or loyalty to Rowan Williams who has put so much effort into the idea.<br /><br />Much depends on the English General Synod but should it vote against (after inevitably referring it to the dioceses) Rowan Williams will have no choice but to resign.<br /><br />Better not to do anything.Concerned Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07428294874876279091noreply@blogger.com