Mike's musings

Priesthood in the Church of England

Just a quick post that I thought might be of interest to some. A friend, currently considering a vocation to the priesthood, recently asked me "what's distinctive about priesthood in the Church of England"? I put together a quick answer:

For me, there are a few threads, but the two most important are:

1. inclusivity: we've got it wrong so many times, and will continue to get it wrong (as we are now), but deep, deep in the genetic make up of the Church of England is a commitment to inclusivity. A commitment to allowing the more catholic side to get on with the more protestant side started it, and that's in many ways still key, though the "protestant" side is more often referred to as "evangelical" now. I think there's something very broken about the Church of England which is also very divine: to borrow from Gerard Manley Hopkins, "the centre cannot hold": but it always does.
2. inclusivity: but of a different kind. As an incumbent - or a supporter to an incumbent, whether lay or ordained - there is a requirement, and a legal one at that, to minister to every single person in the parish. There is no choice: you have to minister to them, whether you like it or not. You have the cure of _all_ souls. This is an enormous responsibility, and an enormous privilege. Somehow, every single person - every single soul - in our country has the right to approach the Church, through its ministers (again, whether ordained or lay), and to expect succour. That's amazing to me.

Labels: CofE, priest

Theology - penal substitution of atonement

It's a while since I blogged much theology, but things are settling down at home (church with Jo, more breastfeeding today - which went well - a long walk with Jo on my back and with the dog - not on my back, etc.), and I took the time to read an article by Bishop Tom Wright in the "Church Times about the doctrine of penal substitution atonement. There's currently a major argument going on within the evangelical parts of the Church of England around whether penal substitution is the only doctrine of substitution which should be accepted, and how severe a version of the doctrine should be adopted.

In fact, there's been something of a split within the evangelical parts of the CofE. One (Baptist) evangelical, whose book "The Lost Message of Jesus" has many adherents, is Steve Chalke. He rejected one understanding of penal substitionary atonement as "a vengeful father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed." "The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse".

Well, of course it isn't. First of all, let me say that I do find this particular doctrine of atonement useful. It's one of several that I find helpful, in fact, but I feel that it's often oversimplified. For a start, talking about the Father the Son in the way that Chalke is quoted as doing seems to be grossly negligent of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son aren't just a father and a son - they're part of the Trinity: cosubstantial, coeternal. The Father doesn't force the cross on the Son: it's a joint decision by all parts of the Trinity - the Spirit as well.

But Tom Wright's view, which is opposed to Chalke's, is one with which I also can't hold. The problem the Wright seems to have with rejection of the "strong" view of penal subs titution is that it rejects the view of God's wrath. Wright is very much in favour of a theology which highlights God's wrath. This I find very difficult. He writes "...God's wrath is the necessary outworking of his love. If God does not hate slavery, child-abuse and the exploitation of the poor; and if God is not determined to condemn them and rid his world of them, then God's judgement is neither good nor loving." Well, I agree with the second of those sentnences, but really don't need to take on the first. Wrath is usually associated with vengeance, and this I reject. At no point in his article does Wright reference the core gospel ("good news") for me: God is love. S/He can be horrified by, saddened by, angered by, despair at all the things that Wright mentions, but can do so without wreaking vengeance. Wrath - violent, almost uncontrolled anger - is not what I associate with the God I know who is revealed in his Son in the New Testament. A God who allows his Son to take on the burden (the uncontrollably oppressive, the unbearably painful burden) of our sins for the sake of love: that is the God I know.

Labels: CofE, love, theology